i  £  MAR 

\4. 

X°/« 


Sar tin, ' Barnes ,  1796-1846. 

A  short  treatise  on  the 
imputation  of  Adam’s  first 

- -  rr  *  *  *  *•  -  *  -  •  -  •  * m 


% 


Y 


I 


IMPUTATION 


OF  ADAM’S  SIN. 


A 


SHORT  TREATISE 

ON  THE 

IMPUTATION 


OF 


ADAM’S  FIRST  SIN  TO  HIS  POSTERITY. 


BY  JAMES  MARTIN, 

Minister  of  the  Gospel,  Albany,  N.  Y. 


ALBANY : 

PRINTED  AND  PUBLISHED  BY  HOFFMAN  AND  WHITE. 


1834 


Copy  right  secured  according  to  Act  of  Congress. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 

The  watchman  on  the  walls  of  Zion  is  com¬ 
manded,  under  the  most  fearful  denunciation, 
“  to  blow  the  trumpet  and  warn  the  people/’ 
on  every  approach  of  danger.  In  obedience 
to  this  heavenly  mandate,  the  Author,  above 
two  years  ago,  was  lead,  in  a  particular  man¬ 
ner,  to  raise  his  warning  voice  against  the 
danger  arising  from  the  rapid  propagation, 
both  from  the  pulpit  and  the  press,  of  erro¬ 
neous  sentiments  respecting  the  doctrine  of 
Original  Sin.  Having,  carefully  examined  the 
subject,  with  a  special  reference  to  the  Imputa¬ 
tion  of  Adam’s  First  Sin  to  his  Posterity , 
both,  as  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  as  pre¬ 
sented  in  the  writings  of  some  of  the  ablest 
divines,  he  delivered  to  the  people  of  his 
charge,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  his  minis' 
trations,  the  substance  of  what  appears  in  the 
following  Treatise.  Afterwards,  a  consider¬ 
able  portion  of  the  main  argument  was  publish¬ 
ed  in  numbers,  in  the  Religious  Monitor. 


VI 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


The  earnest  solicitation  of  friends,  in  whose 
judgment  the  Author  greatly  confides,  has  in¬ 
duced  him,  though  with  reluctance,  to  present 
the  result  of  his  labors  to  the  public,  in  the  pre¬ 
sent  form.  The  subject  treated  of  is  certainly 
one  of  immense  importance.  But  whether  the 
present  attempt  will  have  a  beneficial  result,  in 
checking  error  and  promoting  the  truth,  de¬ 
pends  upon  the  favor  of  Zion’s  King.  And  to 
Him  and  his  attendant  blessing,  this  little  book, 
designedly  written  in  defence  of  His  truth,  is 
hereby  humbly  and  prayerfully  commended. 

Albany,  June  20th,  1834. 


CONTENTS! 


Page. 

CHAPTER  I. — Introductory  remarks, •••  IS 

CHAPTER  II. — Exegesis  of  Romans  v.  12 
—  19, . .  20 

Sec.  1. — Of  the  Connection  and  General 

Scope  of  the  Passage, .  21 

Sec.  2. — Of  the  Parenthesis  contained  in 
the  Passage,  according  to  the  Common 

Translation,  . * .  24 

Sec.  3. — Of  the  “One  Man”  spoken  of, 
and  the  Sin  and  Death  which  entered 

by  him, .  25 

Sec.  4. — Of  the  passing  of  Death  upon 

all  Men, .  29 

Sec.  5. — The  Apostle’s  Proof  of  the  fore¬ 
going, .  31 

Sec.  6. — Of  the  Resemblance  between 

Adam  and  Christ, .  37 

Sec.  7. — Of  the  Contrast  between  Adam 
and  Christ, . 39 


Vlll 


CONTEXTS. 


Page, 

►Sec.  8. — Of  the  Apostle’s  conclusion  in 

the  18th  verse, .  42 

Sec.  9. — The  Reason  of  the  foregoing 
Conclusion  more  explicitly  stated,*  •  •  •  45 

CHAPTER  III. — The  foregoing  exegesis 

DEFENDED  IN  OPPOSITION  TO  THE  VIEWS  OF 
THE  NEW  HAVEN  SCHOOL,. .  47 

Sec.  1. — An  Extract  from  the  Christian 
Spectator,  with  an  Advertisement  to 

the  Reader, .  47 

Sec.  2. — Of  a  Misrepresentation  con¬ 
tained  in  the  Extract, .  51 

Sec.  3. — A  Mistake  corrected,  in  respect 
to  the  meaning  of  the  term  “  Death,” 

as  used  by  the  Apostle, .  53 

Sec.  4. — Concerning  the  Statement,  that 
“Temporal  Death  forms  no  part  of  the 

Legal  Penalty,” . .  * .  55 

Sec.  5. — The  Introduction  of  an  “Econ¬ 
omy  of  Grace,”  no  Proof  of  the  Repeal 
of  any  Part  of  the  Legal  Penalty,*  *  •  ♦  58 

Sec.  6. — Proofs  that  Temporal  Death 
does  belong  to  the  Legal  Penalty.*  •  •  *  61 

Sec.  7. — The  Ante-Mosaic  Period  not 
Peculiarized  by  the  Fact,  that  “  There 


CONTENTS. 


IX 


Page, 

was  no  Law  threatening  Death,  as  its 

Penalty,”*  .  6G 

Sec.  8. — Temporal  Death,  under  what¬ 
ever  Form  it  comes,  Proves  the  Pre¬ 
vious  existence  of  Sin  in  its  Subject,-  73 
Sec.  9. — Of  the  Kind  of  Sin  of  which  the 
Apostle  treats, .  77 

CAPTER  IV. — Adam  the  federal  repre¬ 
sentative  of  his  POSTERITY, .  84 

Sec.  1. — Of  the  Reality  of  a  Federal 

Transaction  with  Adam, .  8  b 

Sec.  2. — Of  the  Representative  Charac¬ 
ter  of  Adam, . . .  93 

Sec.  3. — The  Representative  Character 
of  Adam  Proved  from  Romans,  v.  12.  96 

Sec.  4. — The  Same  Proved  from  1.  Cor. 

xv.  22, .  98 

Sec.  5. — The  Same  Proved  from  the 
Special  Notice  which  the  Apostle  takes 

of  the  “One  Offense,” .  100 

Sec.  6. — The  Same  Proved  from  a  Con¬ 
sideration  of  the  Representative  Char¬ 
acter  of  Jesus  Christ,  . .  102 

Sec.  7. — The  Same  Proved  from  the 
Comparison,  drawn  in  Scripture,  be- 


X 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 

tween  Adam  and  Christ, . •  •  •  *  103 

Sec.  8. — The  Same  Proved  from  a  Con¬ 
sideration  of  the  Moral  condition  of 
Infants,  •  •  •  • . . .  110 

CHAPTER  V. — Imputation  defined,  and 

THE  POINT  IN  DEBATE  PRESENTED, . .  •  119 

CHAPTER  VI. — The  imputation  of  adam;s 

FIRST  SIN  TO  HIS  POSTERITY  PROVED,  • .  1£8 

S^c.  1. — The  Doctrine  Proved  from  the 
Fact  of  Adam’s  Sustaining  a  Repre¬ 
sentative  Character  at  the  Time  he 

Sinned, . •  •  128 

Sec.  2. — From  the  Apostle’s  Declaration, 

Romans  v.  19, .  129 

Sec.  3. — From  the  Condemnation  of  all 
Men  on  Account  of  Adam’s  Sin, .....  132 

CHAPTER  VII. — The  same  subject  con¬ 
tinued,  .  135 

Sec.  1. — The  Doctrine  Proved  from  the 
Universal  loss  of  the  Image  of  God,..  135 
Sec.  2. — From  the  Innate  Corruption  of 
Human  Nature, . . .  •  153 


CONTENTS'. 


XI 


rage. 

CHAPTER  VIII. — The  same  subject  con¬ 
tinued, .  166 

Sec.  1. — The  Doctrine  Proved  from  the 
Inability  of  Adam’s  Descendants  to  keep 

the  Commandments  of  God, . *  •  •  •  166 

Sec.  2. — From  the  Sufferings  and  Death 

oflnfants, . .  179 

Sec.  3. — From  the  Salvation  of  Infants,  189 

CHAPTER  IX. — Objections  answered,  ••  •  193 

Sec.  1. — The  Objection,  that  the  Doc¬ 
trine  is  contrary  to  Common  Sense, 


Answered,  . . *  194 

Sec.  2. — That  it  Militates  against  the 
Justice  of  God,  Answered, .  197 


Sec.  3. — That  it  strips  Man  of  a  Free¬ 
will  and  State  of  Probation,  Answered,  206 
Sec.  4. — That  it  divests  Man  of  the  Char¬ 
acter  of  a  Moral  Agent,  Answered,  ••  2L1 
Sec.  5. — That  it  is  Contrary  to  the  Divine 
Declaration,  that  “the  Son  shall  not 
bear  the  Iniquity  of  the  Father,”  An¬ 
swered,*  • . . .  214 

Sec.  6. — That  it  makes  God  the  Author 

of  Sin,  Answered, .  220 

Sec.  7.-— That  it  is  Inconsistent  with  the 


Xll 


CONTENTS. 


Page, 

Commandments  of  God,  Answered,**  222 
►Sec.  8. — That  it  Contradicts  the  very 


Nature  of  Sin  which  Consists  in  Vol¬ 
untary  Action,  Answered, . 226 

Sec.  9. — The  Objection,  that  Original  Sin 
cannot  be  Repented  of,  Answered,  •  •  •  228 

CHAPTER  X.—The  conclusion,* . 235 


A  SHORT  TREATISE 


ON  THE 

IMPUTATION  OF  ADAM’S  FIRST  SIN 
TO  HIS  POSTERITY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

i 

INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

The  term  original  sin,  was  first  introduced  by 
Augustine,  in  his  controversy  with  the  Pelagians, 
as  being  a  convenient  and  significant  name  for  an 
article  of  truth,  which  had  not  till  that  time  been 
controverted  in  the  Christian  Church.  But,  al¬ 
though  Augustine  ably  defended  the  doctrine  of 
the  imputation  of  Adam’s  first  sin  to  his  posterity, 
yet  by  the  term  “  original  sin,”  he  only  designated 
the  innate  corruption  of  human  nature ;  and  he  so 
designated  it,  not  merely  to  express  its  derivation 
from  our  first  original,  but  as  being  itself  the  ori¬ 
gin ,  or  fountain,  from  which  proceed  all  actual 
transgressions.  By  the  early  Reformers,  this  term 
was  generally  used  in  the  same  restricted  sense — 
the  imputation  of  the  first  sin  being  maintained  by 
them  under  a  distinct  head  of  doctrine.  The  term, 


2 


14 


however,  soon  came  to  be  used  in  a  more  exten¬ 
sive  sense,  including  both  the  imputation  of  the 
first  sin,  and  also  the  corruption  of  nature  conse¬ 
quent  upon  that  imputation.  And  lest  there  should 
be  any  confusion  of  ideas,  or  any  subterfuge  for 
opponents,  created  by  such  a  comprehensive  use 
of  the  term,  it  was  distinguished  into  “  original  sin 
imputed,”  and  “  original  sin  inherent” — a  distinc¬ 
tion  which  has  ever  since  been  carefully  observed 
by  the  generality  of  Calvinistic  writers  upon  the 
subject.  And  the  observance  of  this  distinction  is 
very  necessary.  For,  there  are  many,  who  pro¬ 
fess  to  hold  the  doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  who, 
when  they  come  to  explain  themselves,  only  mean 
“original  sin  inherent,”  or  native  corruption,  total¬ 
ly  renouncing  the  idea  of  “original  sin  imputed,” 
or  the  imputation  of  Adam’s  sin,  as  the  ground  of 
that  corruption.  When,  therefore,  we  speak  of 
Original  Sin,  in  the  following  Treatise,  without 
any  qualification,  we  would  be  understood  as  in¬ 
cluding  both  these  ideas. 

Various  have  been  the  opinions  of  professed 
Christians  in  relation  to  Original  Sin.  The  first 
departure  from  the  Orthodox  faith,  on  this  subject, 
was  made  by  Pelagius,  about  the  beginning  of  the 
fifth  century.  Although,  there  had  existed,  in  the 
church,  disputes  respecting  almost  all  the  other 


15 


heading  doctrines  of  Christianity,  yet  history  gives 
us  no  hint  of  any  discrepancy  on  this  subject,  until 
the  time  just  specified.  Pelagius,  however,  afid 
his  followers,  fiercely  assailed  the  received  doe- 
trine  of  the  church  on  this  head,  boldly  maintain¬ 
ing,  on  the  contrary,  that  man,  as  born  into  the 
world,  neither  possessed  a  corrupted  nature,  nor 
was  chargeable  with  the  guilt  of  Adam’s  sin.  This 
heresy,  through  the  energy  and  zeal  of  AttGtrsTiNfr, 
and  other  champions  of  the  truth,  was  soon  con¬ 
demned  by  various  ecclesiastical  councils.  But, 
although  the  doctrine  of  Original  Sin  was,  at  that 
time,  triumphantly  maintained  by  the  church,  yet 
during  the  long  night  of  Papal  darkness,  which 
succeeded,  it  became  corrupted  to  such  a  degree, 
that  at  the  commencement  of  the  Reformation,  it 
was,  in  the  mouths  of  Papists,  an  entirely  different 
doctrine,  from  that  which  Augustine  had  so  ably 
defended.  At  that  period  the  general  belief  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  was,  that  the  ill-desert  of  Adam’s 
sin  was  not  imputed  to  his  posterity,  but  only  an 
exposure  or  liability  to  the  endurance  of  evils ;  and 
that,  although  man  was  now  born  destitute  of  po¬ 
sitive  holiness,  yet  he  possessed  no  contrary  habit 
of  sin.  Or,  if  it  was  allowed,  that  there  was  any 
thing  sinful  about  the  infant  seed  of  Adam,  the 
early  administration  of  Baptism  was  supposed  to  be 


16 


sufficient  to  wash  it  entirely  away.  In  reforming1, 
however,  the  doctrines  of  the  church  from  the 
gross  corruptions  which  a  dark  age  had  heaped 
upon  them,  the  early  Reformers  were  at  particular 
pains  to  restore  the  doctrine  of  Original  Sin  to  its 
primitive  purity.  But  soon  new  and  deadly  ene¬ 
mies  to  this  doctrine  sprung  up.  The  Socinians 
adopted  the  errors  of  Pelagius.  Even  the  Ana¬ 
baptists  derided  this  doctrine  as  “the  figment  of 
Augustine.”  The  Arminians  followed  the  foot¬ 
steps  of  the  Socinians^  and  contended,  with  them, 
“that  man  had  lost  nothing  by  the  fall ,  had  in¬ 
curred  no  damage  by  the  fall”  After  this,  Qua¬ 
kers  and  other  fanatics  sprung  up  amidst  the  Re¬ 
formed  churches,  embracing  the  same  perverted 
and  anti-scriptural  sentiments.  The  Wesleyan 
Methodists,  though  on  the  whole  Arminian  in 
sentiment,  nevertheless,  acknowledged  a  sinful 
corruption  of  nature,  with  a  will,  however,  left  free 
to  the  choice  of  good  :  But  in  regard  to  the  guilt 
of  Adam’s  first  sin,  so  far  as  it  had  any  bearing 
upon  his  descendants,  they  maintained  that  it  was 
taken  away  by  the  death  of  Christ.  There  are 
many  in  this  country,  who,  though  they  discard 
“  original  sin  imputed,”  nevertheless  maintain  “ori¬ 
ginal  sin  inherent,”  or  an  entire  corruption  of  na¬ 
ture,  And,  in  this  respect,  they  are  the  followers 


17 


of  one  Placauis,  (de  la  Place,)  a  French  Professor, 
whose  heresy  was  condemned  by  a  National  Sy¬ 
nod,  held  at  Charenton,  a.  d.  1644,  in  these  words: 
“The  Synod  do  condemn  this  doctrine,  as  it  so  re¬ 
stricts  the  nature  of  original  sin  to  the  hereditary 
corruption  of  Adam’s  posterity,  as  to  exclude  the 
imputation  of  that  first  sin,  by  which  Adam  fell ; 
and  do,  therefore,  determine,  that  Pastors,  Pro¬ 
fessors,  and  all  others,  be  subjected  to  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  censures,  who,  in  discoursing  on  this  doctrine, 
have  departed  from  the  common  sentiment  of  the 
Reformed  Churches,  all  of  which  have  as  yet  ac¬ 
knowledged  both  that  corruption  and  this  imputa¬ 
tion,  as  descending  to  all  the  posterity  of  Adam.” 
This  same  doctrine,  however,  which  was  thus  so¬ 
lemnly  condemned  by  a  Protestant  Synod,  in  ac¬ 
cordance  with  the  universal  sentiment  of  the  Re¬ 
formed  Churches,  has  long  existed  among  us,  un¬ 
der  the  protecting  and  nourishing  embrace  of  the 
Hopkinsians.  But  even  that  remaining  portion  of 
truth,  on  this  subject,  which  the  Hopkinsian  tenet 
preserved  to  us,  has  been  meataphysically  murdered 
by  the  introduction  of  a  new  system  ;  which,  in¬ 
deed,  is  not  a  new  system,  but  an  old  system,  which 
had  its  rise  in  the  dark  minds  of  a  Pelagius  and 
Socinus.  This  New  Light,  or  New  School  sys¬ 
tem,  as  it  is  familiarly  termed,  and  which  is  very 


18 


Extensively  embraced  by  Congregationalists  and 
Presbyterians,  throughout  our  country,  repre¬ 
sents  mankind  as  born  into  the  world,  to  be  neither 
holy  nor  unholy,  neither  charged  *with  Adam’s 
guilt,  nor  tinctured  with  any  innate  corruption ; 
but  placed,  at  the  same  time,  under  such  a  divine 
constitution,  as  will  secure  in  them,  the  moment 
they  arrive  at  the  period  of  moral  agency,  a  sinful 
choice ;  which  sinful  choice  is  made  essential  to 
the  very  being  of  sin.  To  this  catalogue  of  opin¬ 
ions  respecting  Original  Sin,  it  may  be  added,  that 
among  those  who  would  be  esteemed  orthodox  upon 
the  subject,  and  firm  adherents  to  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  there  are 
many,  who  give  such  an  explanation  of  the  doc¬ 
trine,  as  entirely  destroys  it,  so  far  as  the  u  impu¬ 
tation  of  Adam’s  first  sin”  is  concerned.  Profess¬ 
ing  to  believe,  that  “  the  guilt  of  Adam’s  first  sin  is 
imputed  to  all  his  posterity,”  by  guilt,  they  only 
mean  a  liability  or  exposure  to  punishment,  entirely 
excluding  the  idea  of  ill-desert ;  and  hence,  they 
coincide,  very  exactly,  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Pa¬ 
pists,  as  before  noticed.  And  as  this  is  the  way  in 
which  some  individuals,  who  would  be  considered 
at  the  head  of  Orthodoxy,  in  the  General  Assembly 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  hold  to  t  he  imputation 
of  the  guilt  of  Adam’s  sin,  as  mentioned  in  their 


19 

Subordinate  Standards,  it  will  be  noticed  more  par¬ 
ticularly  afterwards. 

Such,  then,  are  some  of  the  sentiments  which 
have  been,  and  still  are,  entertained,  on  the  very 
important  subject  of  Original  Sin.  And,  indeed, 
it  may  be  safely  affirmed,  that  at  no  former  period 
of  the  Church,  at  least  since  the  days  of  the  Re¬ 
formation,  has  this  doctrine  been  so  extensively 
corrupted,  as  at  the  present.  And  since  it  is  the 
doctrine  of  “original  sin  imputed,”  which  is  so 
obnoxious  to  the  multitude,  so  hated,  derided  and 
rejected,  it  is  proposed  in  the  following  Tteatisk 
to  illustrate  and  establish  this  doctrine ;  and  in  so 
doing,  the  truth  of  “  original  sin  inherent”  will  also, 
at  the  same  time,  be  confirmed. 


/ 


20 


CHAPTER  II. 

EXEGESIS  OF  ROMANS  V.  12 - 19. 

Before  proceeding  directly  to  the  execution  of 
the  purpose  intended,  and  as  a  proper  foundation 
of  the  whole  discussion,  a  brief  exegetical  view 
shall  be  taken  of  the  following  interesting  portion 
of  Divine  Revelation : 

Rom.  v.  12.  Wherefore,  as  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
world,  and  death  by  sin :  and  so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for 
that  all  have  sinned : 

13.  (For  until  the  law  sin  was  in  the  world :  but  sin  is  not  im¬ 
puted  when  there  is  no  law. 

14.  Nevertheless  death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses,  even  over 
them  that  had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam’s  trans¬ 
gression,  who  is  the  figure  of  him  that  was  to  come. 

15.  But  not  as  the  offense,  so  also  is  the  free  gift.  For  if 
through  the  offense  of  one  many  be  dead ;  much  more  the  grace 
of  God,  and  the  gift  by  grace,  which  is  by  one  man,  Jesus  Christ, 
hath  abounded  unto  many. 

16.  And  not  as  it  was  by  one  that  sinned,  so  is  the  gift:  for  the 
judgment  was  by  one  to  condemnation,  but  the  free  gift  is  of  many 
offenses  unto  justification. 

17.  For  if  by  one  man’s  offense  death  reigned  by  one ;  much 
more  they  which  receive  abundance  of  grace,  and  of  the  gift  of 
righteousness,  shall  reign  in  life  by  one,  Jesus  Christ:) 

18.  Therefore,  as  by  the  offense  of  on  &  judgment  came  upon  all 
men  to  condemnation  ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  the 
free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life. 

19.  For  as  by  one  man’s  disobedience  many  were  made  sin¬ 
ners  ;  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous. 

This  portion  of  God’s  Book,  ever  since  it  was 
written,  has  been  considered  by  the  advocates  of 
the  doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  as  decisive  on  that 
subject.  And  indeed  if  that  doctrine  be  not  taught 
in  this  place,  at,  least  so  far  as  it  regards  “  the  impu¬ 
tation  of  Adam’s  first  sin  to  his  posterity,”  we 


21 


might  the  more  readily  bear  with  persons  for  not 
finding  it  elsewhere  taught  in  the  Holy  Oracles. 
It  behooves,  therefore,  every  friend  of  truth  to 
study  this  passage  with  an  unprejudiced  mind, 
with  prayerfulness  and  care,  that  he  may  under- 
stand  and  “keep  the  sayings”  of  the  Spirit  of  truth, 
which  it  contains. 

Sec.  1. — Of  the  Connection  and  General  Scope  of 

the  Passage. 

The  passage,  above  quoted,  is  united  to  its  pre¬ 
ceding  context  by  the  connecting  particle  “where¬ 
fore.”*  The  precise  idea  which  forms  the  basis  of 
the  connection  is  not  so  obvious.  There  does  not 
appear  to  be  any  reason  advanced  immediately  be¬ 
fore,  from  which  this  passage  can  be  regarded  as  a 
legitimate  conclusion  ;  nor  any  reason  contained  in 
the  passage  itself,  to  which  this  conjunctive  parti¬ 
cle,  as  is  frequently  the  case,  can  have  a  prospect¬ 
ive  reference.  We  are  inclined,  therefore,  to  re¬ 
gard  this  particle  to  be  here  used  by  the  Apostle, 
simply  for  the  purpose  of  giving  intimation  that  he 
was  about  to  sum  up  and  draw  to  a  close  the  whole 
discourse  contained  in  the  preceding  part  of  the 
epistle  ;  much  in  the  same  manner  that  the  phrase 


#  (ha  rouro. 


22 


u  on  the  whole  then,”  is  used  by  us  in  similar  cases. 
Accordingly,  we  consider  the  verses  quoted  as  re¬ 
duplicating,  not  only  upon  the  preceding  discus¬ 
sion  respecting  justification,  but  also  upon  what 
had  been  proved  in  the  first  part  of  the  epistle,  con¬ 
cerning  the  universal  guilt  and  condemnation  of 
mankind.  And  as  the  Apostle  had  said  nothing 
there ,  in  relation  to  the  manner  in  which  guilt  and 
condemnation  had  originally  entered  into  the  world, 
he  here  explicitly  states  it,  and  that  for  the  particu¬ 
lar  purpose  also,  of  explaining  the  manner  in  which 
justification  comes  to  believing  sinners  by  Jesus 
Christ.  It  does,  indeed,  appear  manifest,  from  the 
matter  and  structure  of  the  passage,  that  the  great 
and  leading  object  of  the  Apostle,  in  it,  is  to  ex¬ 
plain  the  manner ,  in  which  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  comes  to  be  the  ground  of  a  sinner’s  justifi¬ 
cation  before  God ;  or  how  ungodly  and  condemned 
sinners  become  righteous  through  his  righteous- 
,  ness.  And  this  he  does  by  comparing  it  with  the 
manner *,  in  which  sin  and  condemnation  entered  into 
the  world  by  Adam.  For  had  not  sin  and  con¬ 
demnation  come  by  Adam,  there  would  have  been 
no  occasion  for  righteousness  and  justification, 
coming  by  Jesus  Christ.  The  matter  appears  to 
stand  thus — the  Apostle  had  been  treating  largely 
of  the  doctrine  of  justification,  and  had  fully  estab- 


23 


iisiied  the  point,  that  it  is  not  by  works ,  but  by  faith f 
that  any  child  of  Adam  can  become  justified  in  the 
sight  of  a  holy  God.  But  this  free  justification, 
we  are  told,  is  owing  to  the  finished  work  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Although  persons  are  “jus¬ 
tified  freely  by  grace,”  yet  it  is  “  through  the  re¬ 
demption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus ;  whom  God  hath 
set  [forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his 
blood.”  (Chap.  iii.  24.)  In  the  first  and  eleventh 
verses  of  this  chapter,  we  are  said  to  have  “peace 
with  God,”  and  to  receive  “  the  atonement”  (re¬ 
conciliation)  “through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.” 
Thus,  the  Apostle  had  shown,  that  justification, 
with  all  its  blessed  consequences,  comes  to  us  by 
and  through  our  only  Mediator,  Christ  Jesus.  To 
this  point  he  had  conducted  the  discussion.  Now 
a  question  arises,  or  an  objector  may  be  supposed 
to  ask  it,  by  way  of  cavil :  How,  or  in  what  way, 
can  ungodly  sinners,  without  any  meritorious  do¬ 
ings  of  their  own,  obtain  justification  through  the 
obedience  of  another,  even  Jesus  Christ?  The 
Apostle,  in  conclusion ,  will  answer  this  question  ; 
which  he  does  by  referring  to  the  case  of  sin  and 
condemnation  entering  into  the  world  by  Adam. 
‘‘Wherefore,”  as  to  the  manner  in  which  right- 
eousness  comes  to  us  for  justification  by  Jesus 
Christ,  it  is  the  same  “as  by  one  man  sin  entered 


24 


into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin,  and  so  death  pass¬ 
ed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned,”  &c. 

Sec.  2. — Of  the  Parenthesis  contained  in  the  Pas¬ 
sage ,  according  to  the  Common  Translation , 

It  will  be  perceived,  that  according  to  the  pre¬ 
sent  translation,  a  comparison  is  begun  in  the  12th 
verse,  which  is  left  uncompleted.  For  the  other 
part  of  the  comparison,  termed  the  reddition ,  our 
translators  refer  us  to  the  18th  verse,  having  mark¬ 
ed  all  the  intervening  words  as  a  parenthesis.  The 
ellipsis  may,  indeed,  be  supplied  from  the  latter 
part  of  that  verse  ;  but  as  that  verse  forms  a  ge¬ 
neral  conclusion  from  the  foregoing,  and  contains 
in  itself  a  complete  comparison  of  the  same  im¬ 
port,  and  as  it  presents  no  grammatical  connection 
with  the  12th,  we  think  the  intervening  verses 
should  not  be  regarded  as  parenthetical.  On  the 
contrary,  they  contain  in  themselves  several  dis¬ 
tinct  propositions  and  homologous  comparisons, 
all  bearing  directly  upon  the  general  argument. 
It  is  no  unusual  thing  in  scripture,  to  have  a  com¬ 
parison  with  only  one  side  of  the  resemblance 
stated,  especially  when  the  other  side  is  so  obvi¬ 
ous,  that  it  cannot  be  mistaken.  (See  1  Tim.  i.  3.) 
Hence  the  scope  of  the  Apostle  must  be  consulted 
in  order  to  supply  the  ellipsis  in  this  12th  verse. 


V 


25 

\ 

And  by  attending  to  what  goes  before  and  what 
follows,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  forming  the  true 
supplement ; — which  may  be  done  as  has  already 
been  stated — “Wherefore,”  justification  comes  to 
us  by  Christ,  in  the  same  manner,  “as  by  one  man 
sin  entered  into  the  world  and  death  by  sin,”  Sic. 
Or  the  sentence  may  be  completed  thus — “as  by 
one  man  sin  entered,”  Sic.,  so  by  one  man,  Jesus 
Christ,  righteousness  entered  into  the  world,  and 
life  by  righteousness,  and  so  justification  unto  life 
passes  upon  all  believers,  for  that  they  are  all  made 
righteous  in  Him.  If  this  be  the  doctrine  of  the 
context,  in  relation  to  justification,  the  Apostle 
obviously  designed,  that  the  comparison  should  be 
completed  in  these  or  similar  terms.  And  indeed 
the  meaning  would  not  be  materially  changed,  if 
the  verse  were  regarded  as  expressing  a  perfect 
comparison,  and  read  thus :  “  Wherefore,  as  by 
one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by 
sin,  even  so ,  or  .so  also,*  death  passed  upon  all 
men,”  Sic. 

Sec.  3. — Of  the  “  One  Mari'  spoken  of  and  the 
Sin  and  Death  which  entered  by  him. 

By  the  “one  man”  here  mentioned,  Adam  is  un- 

*'  xwt  ouVwg  being  used  for  ourw  xai. 

3 


26 


questionably  intended.  It  was  by  him  that  sin  was 
introduced  into  the  world  of  mankind.  Death  is 
here  presented  as  the  concomitant  of  sin ;  but  it  is 
stated  in  the  14th  verse,  that  “  death  reigned  from 
Adam sin,  therefore,  must  have  commenced  its 
reign  with  Adam,  and  as  he  was  the  first  of  men, 
he  must  be  the  “  one  man”  here  intended,  by  whom 
“  sin  entered  into  the  world.”  Indeed,  every 
doubt  in  regard  to  the  particular  person  here 
meant,  is  completely  removed  by  the  Apostle’s  de¬ 
claration  to  the  Corinthians,  that  “in  Adam  all 
die.” 

The  term  sin  used  in  this  verse,  does  not  relate, 
so  much,  to  sin  in  general,  as  to  some  particular 
sin,  called  emphatically,  in  the  original,  “  the  sin,” 
the  great,  the  mother  sin.  All  manner  of  sin  did, 
indeed,  enter  in  by  the  door  of  Adam  ;  but  the 
Apostle  here  refers  to  the  first  sin ,  that  entered 
into  the  world  ;  for,  he  adds,  “  and  death  by  sin.” 
Now  it  is  evident,  that  death  was  threatened 
against  the  very  first  sin  of  Adam.  Accordingly, 
when  the  Apostle  asserts,  that  “  by  one  man  sin 
entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin,”  he  ma¬ 
nifestly  speaks  of  the  first  sin  of  Adam,  his  first  dis¬ 
obedience,  his  eating  of  the  forbidden  fruit.  For 
by  that  act  of  transgression,  it  was,  that  death  en: 
tercd  into  the  world. 


27 


The  term  death ,  in  this  place,  is  not  to  be  con¬ 
sidered  as  simply  denoting  “natural  death.”  It  is 
here  put  for  the  whole  penalty  threatened  against 
transgression.  It  was  said  to  Adam,  in  relation  to 
“  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,” — 
“  in  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely 
die.”  The  death  then  threatened,  is  that ,  which 
the  Apostle  here  declares  to  have  entered  “  by 
sin.”  Now  natural  death  forms  but  a  very  unim¬ 
portant  part  of  the  divine  penalty — the  dissolution 
of  the  union  between  soul  and  body  is  hardly  wor¬ 
thy  of  being  mentioned,  when  compared  with  the 
full  amount  of  evil  embraced  by  the  term  death ,  as 
denounced  against  man’s  disobedience.  The  want 
of  original  righteousness,  corruption  of  nature, 
loss  of  God’s  favor,  loss  of  all  communion  with 
him,  disability,  misery,  eternal  torment,  these  are 
the  bitter  ingredients  of  that  death,  which  was 
threatened,  and  which  entered  into  the  world  “by 
one  man’s  sin.”  By  death,  then,  wherever  found 
in  this  context,  we  are  not  to  understand  so  much 
a  natural  as  a  spiritual  death.  It  is  the  penalty 
with  which  God  has  sanctioned  his  holy  law,  that 
is  intended.  This  is  evident,  from  the  contrast, 
which  is  repeatedly  made  in  this  passage,  between 
life  and  death.  If  the  life  spoken  of,  signifies  a 
spiritual  life ,  and  of  this  there  can  be  no  doubt, 


28 


then  the  death,  to  which  it  stands  'opposed,  must 
signify  a  spiritual  death.  In  the  17th  verse,  the 
death  whicli  reigns  “  by  one  man’s  offense,”  is  con¬ 
trasted  with  the  life,  which  believers  receive  “  by 
one,  Jesus  Christ.”  In  the  18th  verse,  the  con¬ 
demnation ,  (to  wit,  of  death,)  which  comes  “by 
the  offense  of  one,”  is  opposed  to  the  justification 
of  life ,  which  comes  as  a  free  gift,  “by  the  right¬ 
eousness  of  one.”  The  21st  verse,  presents  the 
same  contrast  in  the  most  striking  manner — “  That 
as  sin  hath  reigned  un^o  death,  even  so  might 
grace  reign  through  righteousness  unto  eternal 
life,  by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.”  And  again  in 
the  next  chapter,  at  the  £3d  verse,  similar  language 
is  employed — “The  wages  of  sin  is  death,  but  the 
gift  of  God  is  eternal  life,  through  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord.”  Now,  it  cannot  reasonably  be  sup¬ 
posed,  that  the  Apostle  uses  the  word  death  in  a 
more  restricted,  or  less  significant  sense,  in  any 
one  part  of  this  context,  than  he  does  in  those  just 
specified.  Hence,  when  he  tells  us,  that  “by  sin 
death  entered  into  the  world,”  he  must  mean  that 
death  which  is  the  full  “  wages  of  sin,”  and  which 
is  the  very  opposite  of  that  gift  of  God  which  is 
“  eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.” 


29 


Sec.  4. — Of  the  passing  of  Death  upon  all  Men » 

But  notwithstanding  that  the  penalty,  death , 
entered  by  the  first  sin  of  Adam,  he  was  not  its 
only  subject ;  it  did  not  stop  with  him  ;  it  “  pass¬ 
ed  upon  all  men.”  And  it  so  passed,  as  it  entered, 
death  entered  by  the  sin  of  one  man,  “  and  so  [that 
is,  by  the  sin  of  one  man,]  death  passed  upon  all 
men.”  It  passed  (Si ?jX0sv)  through  him  to  (sig) 
all  men.  This  action  is  spoken  of  as  already  com¬ 
pleted.  It  is  not  said,  death  will  pass,  but  death 
passed  upon  all  men.  And  if  we  inquire  after  the 
particular  time  when  this  happened,  it  was,  when 
“  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world.”  But  as 
the  penalty,  in  its  full  extent,  has  not  been  actual¬ 
ly  endured  by  all  men,  some  having  been  pardoned 
and  saved,  and  millions  of  others  being  yet  un¬ 
born,  the  meaning  must  be,  that  all  became,  from 
that  moment,  “  dead  in  law,”  or  that  a  sentence  ot 
death  was  then  judicially  passed  upon  all.  But  as 
this  could  not  have  taken  place  in  justice,  but  upon 
the  supposition,  that  all  were  involved  in  guilt, 
and  thus  rendered  obnoxious  to  the  penalty,  the 
Apostle  adds,  “for  that  all  have  sinned.”  Here 
he  assigns  the  reason  why  “  death  passed  upon  all 
men.”  And  it  by  no  means  affects  the  meaning  of 
this  clause,  whether  we  rest  in  the  present  trans- 


S* 


J 


30 

]ation  of  it,  or  adopt  the  marginal  reading,  “in 
whom  all  have  sinned.”  This  latter  is  the  more 
literal  translation  of  the  original,  and  was  general¬ 
ly  adopted  by  the  ancient  fathers,  as  also  by  most 
of  the  Reformers.  The  only  difference,  however, 
between  the  two  readings  is,  that  while  the  one  as¬ 
serts,  in  so  many  words,  that  all  men  sinned  in 
Adam,  the  other  implies  this  by  necessary  infe¬ 
rence.  For  if,  injudicial  procedure,  sin  must  have 
precedence  of  the  penalty,  and  if  at  some  former 
period  of  time,  death,  the  penalty  of  the  divine 
law,  passed  judicially  upon  all  men,  and  as  all  men 
had  not  then  sinned  personally,  not  having,  as  yet, 
been  brought  into  existence,  it  follows  that  all 
must  have  sinned  in  Adam.  The  opponents  of  the 
doctrine  of  Original  Sin  prefer  the  common  trans¬ 
lation  of  this  clause.  The  other,  however,  may 
justly  be  regarded  as  entitled  to  the  preference. 
Because,  of  the  two,  it  is  the  more  easy  and  natu¬ 
ral  rendering ;  especially,  when  it  is  considered, 
that  the  words  “and  so,”  or  “even  so,”  require  a 
repetition  of  the  words  “  by  one  man,”  to  complete 
the  sentence  :  and  had  this  implied  repetition  been 
expressed  by  the  Apostle,  perhaps  there  never 
would  have  been  any  dispute  respecting  the  true 
rendering  of  the  clause  in  question.  Let  the  el¬ 
lipsis,  then,  be  supplied,  and  the  verse  will  une- 


31 


quivocally  read  as  follows:  “Wherefore,  as  by 
one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by 
sin,  and  so,  (or  even  so,)  death  passed  upon  all 
men,  by  that  one  man ,  in  whom  all  have  sinned." 
And  besides,  this  reading  seems  to  express  more 
forcibly  the  mind  of  the  Apostle,  as  intended  in  the 
context ;  and  surely  we  are  bound  to  give  to  the 
language  of  any  writer  its  greatest  force  in  support 
of  his  declared  sentiments.  And  why  should  the 
declaration,  that  “  all  mankind  sinned  in  Adam,5' 
be  pronounced  more  harsh  and  inconsistent  than 
the  following? — “In  Adam  all  die.”  (1  Cor.  xv. 
22.)  “Levi  paid  tithes  in  Abraham.”  (Heb.  vii. 
9.)  “God  hath  raised  us  up  together,  and  made 
us  sit  together  in  heavenly  places  in  Christ  Jesus.” 
(Eph.  ii.  6.)  he. 

Sec.  5. — The  Apostle's  Proof  of  the  foregoing. 

But  is  it  a  fact,  that  the  all  men ,  spoken  of  in 
this  verse,  includes  the  whole  human  family?  The 
opponents  of  the  doctrine  of  imputation  will  not 
allow,  that  the  terms  all  men  and  all  designate,  in 
this  place,  all  mankind  universally.  They  restrict 
these  terms  to  such  as  have  sinned  actually.  But, 
we  apprehend,  that  the  Apostle’s  express  design, 
in  the  next  two  verses,  is  to  prove  that  all  men. 
without  any  exceptions,  sinned  in  Adam,  Accord- 


c 


32 


ingly  he  fixes  upon  a  period,  when,  if  ever,  such 
exceptions  must  have  existed ;  viz  :  the  period  be¬ 
tween  Adam  and  Moses,  when  the  law  possessed 
a  comparative  obscurity,  there  not  being  that  clear 
external  dispensation  of  it,  as  was  the  case  after¬ 
wards.  Now,  it  is  an  obvious  dictate  of  reason, 
that  when  there  is  no  laiv ,  there  can  he  no  imputation 
of  sin;  for  sin  must  be  imputed  according  to  the 
rule  of  law.  But  let  none  maintain,  that  Adam’s 
breaking  of  the  law  of  God  annihilated  it,  until  it 
was  afterwards  given  by  Moses,  and  that,  conse¬ 
quently,  during  that  period,  there  could  be  no  sin 
imputed,  there  being  no  rule,  according  to  which, 
it  might,  in  justice,  be  imputed.'  For  the  Apostle 
plainly  affirms  the  contrary.  He  says,  (v.  13,) 
“  For  until  the  law,  [that  is,  before  it  was  given 
by  Moses]  sin  was  in  the  world.”  During  all  that 
period  of  more  than  twenty-five  hundred  years  sin 
existed.  Consequently  there  was  also  a  law  in 
existence,  even  the  moral  law,  which  Adam  had 
violated  :  “  For  sin  is  not  imputed  when  there  is 
no  law.”  But  sin  was  imputed  during  that  period ; 
for,  adds  the  Apostle,  “nevertheless  death  reigned 
from  Adam  to  Moses.”  (v.  14.)  And  surely,  if 
the  penalty  reigned,  sin,  the  cause  of  it,  must  have 
existed,  and  also  the  law,  according  to  which,  the 
penalty  was  inflicted.  Now  the  Apostle  will  ad- 


vnit  of  no  exception,  as  to  the  extent  of  the  reign 
of  the  penalty,  during  the  period  which  preceded 
the  giving  of  the  law  at  Mount  Sinai.  He  de¬ 
clares,  that  u  death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses, 

EVEN  OVER  THEM  THAT  HAD  NOT  SINNED  AFTER  THE 

similitude  of  Adam’s  TRANSGRESSION/’  Infants, 
no  doubt,  are  here  characterised.  For  whom  else 
can  the  Apostle  mean  ?  During  the  period  specified, 
he  intimates,  that  some  had  sinned  u  after  the  simili¬ 
tude  of  Adam’s  transgression,”  and  others  had  not. 
This  his  language  evidently  conveys.  For  in  saying 
that  “  death  reigned  even  over  them  that  had  not 
sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam’s  transsfres- 
sion,”  he  plainly  intimates,  that  others  had  so 
sinned.  By  Adam’s  transgression,  therefore,  he 
cannot  mean  the  simple  act  of  his  eating  of  the  for¬ 
bidden  fruit ;  for  none  ever  sinned,  after  the  simi¬ 
litude  of  his  transgression,  in  this  way,  by  person¬ 
ally  partaking  of  that  fruit ;  but  he  means  certain 
qualities  of  that  act,  which  rendered  it  a  sinning 
actually  and  voluntarily  against  God.  And  in  this 
way,  all  his  adult  offspring  sin  after  the  similitude 
of  his  transgression.  They  sin  actually  and  vo¬ 
luntarily.  But  the  case  is  different  with  infants  : 
they  are  incapable  of  sinning  in  this  manner:* 


*  Since  this  Treatise  was  written,  Dr.  Spring,  of  New- York, 
has  published  A  Dissertation  on  Native  Depravity,  in  which  he  ad- 


34 


they  are,  therefore,  intended  by  the  Apostle,  by 
“them  that  had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of 
Adam’s  transgression.”  And  yet  it  is  affirmed, 


vances  an  entirely  new  theory  in  relation  to  the  moral  condition 
of  infants ;  viz :  that  they  are  guilty  of  actual  sin  from  the  first 
moment  of  their  birth.  This  is  not  only  a  novel,  but  a  most  extra¬ 
ordinary  sentiment.  We  do  not  recollect  to  have  ever  seen  or 
heard  any  thing  like  it;  except  that  among  the  Jews  there  were 
some  who  held  that  infants  committed  actual  sin  before  they  were 
born.  The  Dr.  learns  from  the  Bible,  (what  every  person  ought 
to  learn  from  it,)  that  infants  are  really  sinners  as  soon  as  they 
are  born  ;  but  he  cannot  see  any  other  way  in  which  they  can  be 
so,  save  by  the  commission  of  actual  sin.  Having  rejected  the 
avowed  doctrine  of  his  own  church,  respecting  the  imputation  of 
Adam’s  sin  to  his  posterity,  and  the  consequent  inborn  corruption 
of  human  nature,  he  is  forced  to  take  the  position  he  does,  in  order 
to  account  for  that  sinfulness  of  condition  which  the  scriptures 
ascribe  to  infants :  And  hence,  although  he  uses  considerable  se¬ 
verity  against  the  divines  of  the  New-Haven  school,  the  differ¬ 
ence  between  him  and  them  is  scarcely  perceptible,  unless  it  be 
that  he  fixes  the  time  when  infants  begin  to  commit  actual  sin,  a 
little  earlier  than  they  do ;  both  parties  harmoniously  agreeing 
that  “  there  is  no  other  sin  in  the  empire  of  Jehovah.”  Indeed, 
the  New-Haven  divines,  in  their  Review  of  the  Dissertation,  tell 
us,  that  the  only  point  of  difference  between  him  and  themselves 
is,  “  that  while  he  maintains  that  infants  knowingly  and  volun¬ 
tarily  transgress  law  at  the  instant  of  their  creation,  they  have 
neither  denied  or  affirmed  this  position.”  No  great  difference, 
truly  1 

We  agree  with  the  Dr.  in  maintaining,  that  infants,  from  the 
moment  they  are  created  human  beings,  or  in  other  words,  from 
the  moment  in  which  the  union  of  soul  and  body  is  constituted, 
(though  we  would  not  confine  that  to  the  moment  of  their  birth, 


35 


that  death  reigned  even  over  them.  But,  if  they 
were  made  subjects  of  the  penalty  threatened 
against  sin,  the  Righteous  Judge  must  have  re- 

as  he  does,)  become  the  subjects  of  law  and  possess  a  moral  cha¬ 
racter  :  But  they  may  be  all  this  without  possessing  an  immediate 
fitness  for  the  commission  of  actual  sin.  We  could  also  agree 
with  him  in  calling  infants,  inasmuch  as  they  possess  human 
souls,  intelligent  beings ;  provided  the  term  “  intelligent”  be  ta¬ 
ken  passively,  and  not  actively:  that  is,  taken  for  the  faculty,  and 
not  for  the  act  of  intelligence :  For  a  faculty  may  long  exist,  be¬ 
fore  it  performs  any  of  its  appropriate  functions.  In  a  word,  we 
agree  with  Dr.  S.  in  ascribing  to  the  souls  of  infants  all  the  es¬ 
sential  powers  or  faculties  which  belong  to  the  human  soul :  For 
if  a  soul  be  divested  of  its  essential  properties,  it  is  no  longer  a 
soul — any  more  than  a  block  of  marble  would  be  a  block  of  mar¬ 
ble  if  stripped  of  its  essential  attributes  of  length,  breadth,  thick¬ 
ness  and  solidity.  But  we  maintain,  in  opposition  to  him,  that  a 
soul  may  possess  all  its  essential  faculties,  without  having  those 
faculties  actually  discharging  their  peculiar  functions.  Their  ap¬ 
propriate  functions  may  not  be  exercised  immediately,  any  more 
than  the  bodily  organs  do  not  all  immediately  perform  their  pro¬ 
per  functions.  The  new  born  infant  possesses  all  the  organic 
bodily  parts  of  a  perfect  man ;  but  these  are  not  at  once  developed 
in  appropriate  acts.  It  possesses  legs,  but  it  does  not  walk ; 
arms,  but  it  does  not  assist  itself ;  organs  of  speech,  but  it  does 
not  talk,  &e.  In  like  manner  we  contend  that  the  infant,  though 
possessing  a  soul,  and  consequently  its  essential  moral  powers , 
does  not  as  soon  as  born  exercise  those  powers  in  voluntary 
transgression  of  the  law  of  God.  The  Dr.’s  arguments  to  the 
contrary  are  far  from  being  convincing.  They  are  all  based  upon 
the  assumption,  that  because  infants  have  souls,  those  souls  must 
be  exercised,  either  in  the  way  of  obeying  or  disobeying  the  moral 
law  of  God.  There  is  one  text  of  scripture  without  refering  to 


yarded  them  as  being  chargeable  with  sin.-  And 
since  they  had  committed  no  sin  in  their  own  per¬ 
sons,  they  must  have  committed  it  in  a  representa¬ 
tive,  even  in  Mm,  by  whom  sin  and  death  entered 
into  the  world.  Besides,  it  is  not  a  mere  natural 
death,  that  the  Apostle  speaks  of,  as  thus  reigning 
over  infants,  (though  this  would  be  sufficient  to 
prove  them  sinners  by  Adam,)  but,  as  has  been 
before  shown,  death ,  the  'penalty  of  the  divine  law, 
spiritual  death  by  way  of  eminence.  This  death 
reigned  over  every  one  of  them,  and  none  of  them, 
though  dying  in  infancy,  could  have  escaped  from 

any  other ;  which,  we  think,  entirely  overthrows  the  Dr.’s  posi¬ 
tion.  The  distinguished  child,  spoken  of  in  the  seventh  chapter 
of  Isaiah,  is  represented  in  the  16th  verse,  as  existing  for  a  time 
after  his  birth,  without  having  the  knowledge  to  refuse  evil  and 
choose  good — “ Before  the  child  shall  know  to  refuse  the  evil  and 
choose  the  good,”  &c.  Choosing  and  ref  using  are  acts  of  the  will. 
Infants,  according  to  Dr.  S.,  sin  voluntarily ,  that  is,  with  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  will — they  choose  the  evil  and  refuse  the  good.  Yet 
this  text  explicitly  declares,  concerning  the  extraordinary  child 
alluded  to,  that  some  time  would  intervene  between  his  birth  and 
his  knowing  to  refuse  the  evil  and  choose  the  good.  And  surely 
none  will  pretend  to  say,  that  that  child  was  less  quick  of  appre¬ 
hension  than  other  children  ordinarily  are. 

Some  may  consider,  that  we  might  have  suffered  the  novel  opin¬ 
ion  of  this  writer  to  pass  unheeded;  because,  as  has  often  been 
said,  few,  if  any,  will  be  found  to  adopt  it  besides  the  author 
himself.  We  do  not  entirely  think  so.  For  we  do  not  see,  that 
his  opinion  is  more  difficult  to  be  believed,  than  the  ravings  of 
Jrving,  ihe  fooleries  of  Mormonism,  or  the  dogma  of  the  New- 


37 


its  eternal  reign  and  thraldom,  but  by  the  free  and 
sovereign  grace  of  God,  which  “reigns  through 
righteousness  unto  eternal  life,  by  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord.” 

Sec.  6. — Of  the  Resemblance  between  Adam  and 

Christ. 

At  the  close  of  the  14th  verse,  Adam  is  called 
“  the  figure  of  him  that  was  to  come,”  that  is,  of 
Jesus  Christ,  who,  from  the  beginning,  was  pro¬ 
mised  to  come,  as  “  the  seed  of  the  woman,  to 
bruise  the  head  of  the  serpent and  afterwards  as 


Haven  school,  that  there  are  multitudes  of  human'beings  that  are 
neither  holy  nor  unholy — all  which  things  are  adopted  for  truth  by 
many  in  the  present  day.  And  this  being  the  case,  we  cannot 
pretend  to  know  how  many  things  of  similar  wildness  may  not 
be  embraced  by  the  men  of  this  generation.  One  thing,  however, 
we  do  know,  touching  the  point  in  hand,  that  the  relinquish¬ 
ment  of  the  long  established  doctrine  of  the  church  respecting  the 
“  imputation  of  Adam’s  sin  to  his  posterity,”  necessarily  gives 
rise,  so  far  as  the  moral  condition  of  infants  is  concerned,  to  wild 
conjecture,  extravagant  speculation,  vain  philosophy.  For  hav¬ 
ing  abandoned  that  doctrine,  persons  must  either  fly  in  the  face 
of  divine  revelation  and  dogmatically  assert,  with  the  New-Ha- 
ven  school,  that  infants  are  neither  holy  nor  unholy :  or,  with  Dr. 
Spring,  maintain  that  they  actually  and  voluntarily  transgress 
the  moral  law,  as  soon  as  they  are  born:  or  they  must  set  their 
ingenuity  to  work  and  invent  some  other  system  upon  the  subject, 
equally  at  variance  with  the  sober  dictates  both  of  reason  and  of 
revelation'. 


4 


38 


“  the  seed  of  Abraham,  in  whom  all  the  families  oi 
the  earth  should  be  blessed and  who  is  repre¬ 
sented  in  Psalm  xl.  as  saying,  u  Lo,  1  come,’^ 
kc.,  and  whose  praise  is  celebrated  by  the  church 
in  Psalm  cxviii.,  “Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord.”  Now  in  what  sense  is 
Adam  called  the  “  figure,”  type,  or  emblematical 
representation  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ?  It  can 
only  be,  because  he  was  the  head  and  representative 
of  his  natural  seed,  and  acted  in  their  room,  even 
as  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  the  head  and  represent¬ 
ative  of  his  spiritual  seed,  and  acts  in  their  room. 
This  is  the  only  prominent  point  of  resemblance, 
that  can  possibly  be  traced  between  them.  And 
if  this  be  not  the  Apostle’s  meaning,  it  would  be  a 
task  of  endless  conjecture  to  tell  what  he  means. 
But,  that  this  is  his  meaning,  is  evident  from  the 
whole  scope  of  this  passage,  which  exhibits  these 
two  distinguished  personages,  as  acting  in  public 
representative  characters — the  disobedience  of  the 
one  entailing  sin  and  death  upon  all  whom  lie  re¬ 
presented,  and  the  obedience  of  the  other  procuring 
righteousness  and  life  for  all  whom  he  represented 
— and  also  from  what  this  same  Apostle  declares  to 
the  Corinthians,  “  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in 
Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive.”  Here  then  we 
have  a  full  developement  of  the  way,  in  which 


“death  passed  upon  all  men,’'  even  upon  infants ; 
it  is,  because  they  sinned  in  him,  who  was  consti¬ 
tuted  and  acted  the  part  of  their  federal  head  and  re¬ 
presentative  ;  and  who,  in  this  grand  particular, 
“  was  the  figure  of  him  that  was  to  come.” 

Sec.  7. — Of  the  Contrast  between  Adam  and  Christ 

Although  there  be  the  most  manifest  and  strik¬ 
ing  resemblance  between  Adam  and  Christ,  in  point 
of  representative  headship,  each  representing  his 
respective  seed  federally  and  universally,  yet,  in 
point  of  conduct ,  and  the  effects  resulting  from  that 
conduct,  the  most  awful  contrast  is  to  be  marked. 
(Verse  15.)  “But  not  as  the  offense,  so  also  is 
the  free  gift.  For  if  through  the  offense  of  one 
many  be  dead  ;  much  more  the  grace  of  God,  and 
the  gift  by  grace,  which  is  by  one  man,  Jesus 
Christ,  hath  abounded  unto  many.”  The  conduct 
of  the  one  representative  was  a  total  failure  in 
point  of  duty,  “an  offense,”  a  lapse,  a  fall;  that 
of  the  other,  righteousness ,  which,  from  the  free 
and  gracious  manner  in  which  it  was  performed, 
and  from  the  free  and  gracious  manner  in  which  it 
is  conveyed  to  sinners,  may  well  be  called  the  “free 
gift,”  the  “grace  of  God,”  and  the  “gift  by 
grace.”  And  as  to  the  effects  resulting  from  the 
public  conduct  of  these  representatives,  they  are 


40 


/ 


infinitely  different.  The  conduct  of  the  one  re¬ 
sulted  in  death ,  that  of  the  other  in  life *  Yea. 
such  is  the  goodness  of  God,  and  such  the  superi¬ 
ority  of  Christ  to  Adam  in  respect  of  personal  dig¬ 
nity,  that  his  righteousness  avails  more  abund- 
antly  for  the  justification  of  his  seed,  than  does  the 
offense  of  Adam  for  the  condemnation  of  his  seed. 
“  For  if  through  the  offense  of  one  many  be  dead  ; 
much  more  the  grace  of  God,”  fee.  It  may  be  far¬ 
ther  remarked  on  this  verse,  that  the  Apostle  makes 
the  sin  of  Adam  to  be  the  sin  of  his  posterity.  For 
he  says,  “through  the  offense  of  one  many  are 
dead,”  spiritually  dead,  deprived  of  the  favor  of 
God,  destitute  of  righteousness,  full  of  corruption, 
without  God,  without  hope  in  the  world.  They 
are  thus  dead  by  the  offense  of  one ,  viz  :  Adam, 
And  they  that  are  thus  dead  are  called  many ,  not 
to  the  exclusion  of  any  of  the  human  family  ;  for 
it  is  afterwards  asserted,  that  “by  the  offense  of 
one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemna¬ 
tion,”  but  they  are  called  many  for  the  purpose  of 
keeping  up  the  parallel  between  them  and  the  many 

who  live  bv  Jesus  Christ. 

%> 

In  the  16th  verse,  the  Apostle  continues  to  pur¬ 
sue  the  contrast  between  the  public  acts  of  Adam 
and  Christ,  in  relation  to  their  consequences  : 
“  And  not  as  it  was  bv  one  that  sinned,  so  is 


41 


the  gift  :  for  the  judgment  was  by  one  to  condem¬ 
nation,  but  the  free  gift  is  of  many  offenses  unto 
justification.”  The  term  “judgment,”  denotes  a 
judicial  sentence,  proceeding  upon  the  assumption 
of  legal  guilt;  and  the  term  “condemnation,”  de¬ 
notes  the  condition  of  a  criminal,  after  sentence  is 
pronounced  against  him,  and  by  which  he  is  de¬ 
clared  to  be  guilty,  and  stands  adjudicated  to  un¬ 
dergo  the  merited  punishment.  Now  it  is  here 
asserted,  that  “  the  judgment  to  condemnation,” 
spoken  of,  arose  from  “one”  offense.  We  have 
no  concern  in  any  of  the  sins  of  Adam,  save  his 
“one  offense.”  And  that  “one  offense,”  the 
Righteous  Judge  viewed  as  the  legal  guilt  of  all 
men,  and  accordingly,  as  is  here  implied,  and  as  is 
expressly  stated  in  the  18th  verse,  he  issued  a  ju¬ 
dicial  sentence,  involving  the  condemnation  of  all. 
But,  although  the  “  one  offense”  of  Adam  was  thus 
efficacious  for  the  ruin  of  all  men,  still  in  respect 
of  intrinsic  efficiency,  it  falls  short  of  the  gift  of 
righteousness  by  Jesus  Christ.  For  his  obedience 
abundantly  avails,  not  merely  to  justification,  but 
to  the  justification  of  condemned  sinners,  and  not 
to  their  justification  from  the  “one  offense”  of 
their  representative,  only,  but  to  their  justification 
from  their  many  personal  offenses,  also.  “The 
free  gift  is  of  many  offenses  unto  justification.” 

4* 


tn  the  17th  verse,  the  Apostle  contrasts  the  death, 
which  came  by  the  sin  of  Adam,  with  the  life , 
which  is  enjoyed  through  the  righteousness  of 
Christ ;  and,  in  the  way  of  magnifying  the  work  of 
of  the  second  Adam,  he  concludes,  however  cer  * 
tain  it  be  that  death  reigned  by  the  first  Ad¬ 
am,  that  there  is,  if  possible,  a  greater  certainty, 
that  ail,  who  receive  the  grace  of  God,  and  em¬ 
brace  the  gift  of  righteousness,  shall  reign  in  life 
by  Jesus  Christ.  What  a  most  glorious  and  dig-* 
nified  personage,  therefore,  is  Jesus  Christ !  How 
infinitely  meritorious  has  been  his  conduct  as  our 
representative  !  Why  should  any  speak  against  his 
righteousness,  as  being  vicarious  ?  And  why  should 
any  refuse  to  appropriate  it  as  their  own  righteous¬ 
ness  1  Since  it  is  in  this  way,  and  in  this  way 
alone,  that  we  can,  with  the  assurance  of  absolute 
certainty,  escape  death  and  reap  everlasting  life. 
“For,  if  by  one  man’s  offense,  death  reigned  by 
one ;  much  more  they  who  receive  abundance  of 
grace  and  of  the  gift  of  righteousness,  shall  reigil 
in  life  by  one,  Jesus  Christ.” 

Sec.  8.—* Of  the  Apostle's  conclusion  in  the  18 th  v. 

The  18th  verse  is  a  general  inference,  embody¬ 
ing  the  substance  of  all  that  had  been  proved  in  the 
foregoing  verses ;  and  in  making  it,  the  Apostle, 


43 


at  the  same  time,  observes  the  comparative  method 
which  he  had  before  adopted.  “  Therefore,  as  by 
the  offense  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  un¬ 
to  condemnation  ;  even  so  by  the  Righteousness  of 
one,  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justifica¬ 
tion  of  life.”  The  reader  will  observe,  that  the 
words,  judgment  came ,  in  the  former  clause,  are  a 
supplement  borrowed  from  the  16th  verse.  Be¬ 
tween  an  offense  and  a  state  of  condemnation,  on 
account  of  that  offense,  there  necessarily  inter¬ 
venes  a  judgment,  or  judicial  sentence  founded  on 
law  ;  hence  this  supplement  is  natural  and  is  ob¬ 
viously  implied  in  the  Apostle’s  argument.  This 
must  be  borne  in  mind  ;  because,  some  of  the  op 
ponents  of  imputation  are  ready  to  admit,  that,  if 
the  term  “judgment”  had  been  here  expressed  by 
the  Apostle,  and  if  by  the  term  condemnation , 
which  lie  uses,  he -mean  any  thing  more  than  na¬ 
tural  death,  then  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of 
Adam’s  sin,  is  established.  This,  indeed,  is  ho¬ 
nest  ;  but  to  the  force  of  truth  are  we  indebted  for 
the  concession.  For  a  child  may  know,  if  the  con¬ 
demnation,  here  mentioned,  imply  an  adjudication 
to  suffer  the  whole  penalty  of  the  divine  law,  and 
this  condemnation  extend  to  all  men,  and  that  by 
a  judical  sentence,  grounded  upon  the  “one  of¬ 
fense”  of  Adam,  that,  then,  all  must  have  been 


44 


held  guilty  in  Adam.  But  can  any  one  seriously 
doubt  that  the  term  “  condemnation,”  expressed 
in  this  verse,  relates  to  death ,  the  penalty  of  the 
law,  even  to  spiritual  and  eternal,  as  well  as  to 
temporal  death  ?  How  unreasonable  such  a  doubt, 
since  that  term  stands  directly  opposed  to  “justi¬ 
fication  of  life  !”  For  surely  no  person  will  main¬ 
tain,  that  this  “justification  of  life”  signifies  an 
exemption  from  natual  death  !  Candor  must  ad¬ 
mit,  that  it  implies  spiritual  and  eternal  life,  even 
such  a  life  as  is  consequent  upon  justification  be¬ 
fore  God.  And  when  we  also  consider,  that  the 
supplying  of  the  ellipsis,  by  the  word  “judg¬ 
ment,”  is,  as  we  have  seen,  indispensably  necessa¬ 
ry,  it  follows,  in  spite  of  all  opposition  and  cavil, 
that  Adam’s  offense  is  charged  as  the  guilty  cause 
of  the  spiritual  condemnation  of  all.— The  words, 
“the  free  gift  came,”  in  the  latter  clause  of  the 
verse,  are  also  for  the  same  reasons,  properly  sup¬ 
plied,  by  our  Translators,  from  the  16th  verse.  It 
must  not,  however,  from  the  language  here  em¬ 
ployed,  be  supposed,  that  “justification”  by 
Christ,  is  co-extensive  with  “condemnation”  by 
Adam.  This  would  glaringly  contradict  what  is 
elsewhere  taught  us,  concerning  the  everlasting 
destruction  of  all,  “  who  know  not  God  and  who 
obey  not  the  gospel.”  The  “all  men,”  therefore. 


45 


in  both  clauses,  does  not  denote  identically  the 
same  persons,  but  only  the  whole  number  which 
each  of  those  great  federal  heads,  who  are  con¬ 
trasted  throughout  the  whole  of  this  passage,  re¬ 
spectively  represented.  By  the  offense  of  the  one * 
“judgment  came”  upon  all  his  representees  to 
“condemnation  ;”  and  by  the  righteousness  of  the 
other ,  “the  free  gift  came”  upon  all  his  repre¬ 
sentees  to  “justification  of  life.” 

Sec.  9. —  The  Reason  of  the  foregoing  Conclusion 
more  explicitly  stated. 

The  19th  verse  explains  more  fully  the  reason 
of  the  divine  procedure,  mentioned  in  the  18th. 
If  it  be  asked,  why  were  all  men  subjected  to  a 
state  of  condemnation,  on  account  of  the  offense 
of  one  man?  We  are  here  furnished  with  the  an¬ 
swer,  viz:  that  “by  one  man’s  disobedience  they 
were  made  sinners,”  constituted  sinners,  consi¬ 
dered  as  being  guilty  of  that  disobedience.  Hence 
they  were  condemned,  not  as  innocent  creatures, 
but  as  being  sinners ,  chargeable  in  the  sight  of 
heaven  with  the  guilt  of  their  representative. 
And  so  on  the  other  hand,  if  it  be  asked,  how  are 
those,  who  are  guilty  and  condemned  sinners,  put 
in  possession  of  that  incomparable  privilege,  “jus¬ 
tification  unto  life?”  The  answer  is,  that  such. 


46 


by  the  obedience  of  one,*’  Jesus  Cnrist,  are  made 
righteous,  constituted  righteous,  treated  as  right¬ 
eous.  Hence  they  are  justified,  not  as  guilty 
creatures,  but  as  being  righteous,  legally  righteous, 
through  the  righteousness  of  their  representative 
imputed  to  them.  In  respect,  then,  of  God’s  pro¬ 
cedure  relative  to  the  condemnation  and  justifica¬ 
tion  of  men,  the  Apostle’s  declaration,  in  this 
verse,  is  not  only  plain  but  highly  instructive. 
“  For  as  by  one  man’s  disobedience  many  were 
made  sinners  ;  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall 
many  be  made  righteous.” 

The  foregoing  explanatory  remarks,  it  is  be¬ 
lieved,  exhibit  the  true  mind  of  the  Spirit  in  this 
confessedly  important,  though  much  perverted 
scripture,  and  will  be  helpful  in  the  further  prose¬ 
cution  of  the  subject. 


47 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  FOREGOING  EXEGESIS  DEFENDED  IN 

OPPOSITION  TO  THE  VIEWS  OF  THE  NEW" 

HAVEN  SCHOOL. 

Sec.  1. — An  Extract  from  the  Christian  Spectator , 
with  an  Advertisement  to  the  Reader. 

The  Quarterly  Christian  Spectator  for  June, 
4831,  commenting  on  the  passage,  which  we  have 
been  considering  in  the  foregoing  chapter,  holds 
the  following  language : 

44  The  apostle  teaches,  that  death,  considered  as 
an  event  common  to  all  men,  is  not  a  legal  penalty. 
We  suppose  it  will  be  admitted,  that  the  apostle 
here  refers  to  the  sentence  denounced  after  the  fall 
upon  Adam  and  his  race,  as  disclosing  the  facts 
respecting  his  sin  and  its  consequences.  Here 
then  we  might  rest  our  present  position.  For,  as 
we  have  shown,  (p.  314.)  that  sentence  was  not 
the  sentence  of  the  law ,  nor  was  its  execution  the 
penalty  of  the  law.  Many  die  the  death  denounced 
in  that  sentence,  who  are  delivered  from  the  leoal 
penalty.  This  we  regard  as  absolutely  decisive  on 
the  point  now  at  issue. 

44  But  we  are  not  obliged  to  leave  the  question 
here.  The  apostle,  in  the  very  passage  under 
consideration,  has  directly  and  formally  disproved 
the  doctrine,  that  death  comes  on  men  as  the  pe¬ 
nalty  of  any  law  whatever.  He  first  asserts,  that 
the  sin  which  is  in  the  world,  came  into  it  by  one 
man.  He  next  affirms,  that  death  is  by  sin,  and 


48 


that  death,  as  the  consequence  of  sin,  passed  on 
all  men,  because  all  had  sinned.  In  confirmation 
of  this  statement,  he  appeals  to  a  known  and  ac¬ 
knowledged  matter  of  fact,  viz.,  that  before  the 
Mosaic  law,  sin  was  in  the  world.  “But,  he  adds, 
“sin  is  not  imputed  where  there  is  no  law;”  i.  e., 
sin  is  not  charged  and  punished,  where  there  is  no 
law.  Nevertheless,  death  the  consequence ,  (not 
the  penalty,)  of  sin,  prevailed  from  Adam  to  Mo¬ 
ses,  a  period  in  which  there  was  no  law  of  which 
death  could  be  the  penalty.  Sin,  therefore,  was 
in  the  world,  (as  death  its  consequent  decisively 
proves, )  even  when  there  was  no  law  with  death 
as  its  penalty.  Thus,  while  the  apostle  decisively 
teaches  that  death  is  the  consequence  of  sin,  he 
proves  that  it  is  not  the  legal  penalty  of  sin,  ac¬ 
cording  to  any  law  whatever. 

“In  confirmation  of  this  view  of  the  passage, 
we  ask,  why  did  the  apostle  appeal  to  the  preva¬ 
lence  of  death  from  Adam  to  Moses ?  This  period 
was  obviously  distinguished  by  some  peculiarity , 
decisive  in  its  bearing  on  the  apostle’s  argument. 
By  what  peculiarity  ?  This  is  a  vital  question. 
We  answer,  then,  not  by  the  fact,  that  death 
during  this  period,  was  at  all  more  a  consequence 
of  Adam’s  sin,  or  was  more  clearly  shown  to  be 
a  consequence  of  Adam’s  sin,  than  at  any  other 
period.  Not  that  during  the  period  there  was 
no  law,  by  which  was  the  knowledge  of  sin,  and 
by  which  sin  could  be  charged,  for  it  is  beyond  all 
denial,  that  there  was  such  a  law.  What  then 
was  the  fact  peculiar  to  this  period  ?  Plainly  this, 
and  only  this,  that  there  was  no  law  threatening 
death,  as  its  penalty.  To  suppose  the  apostle, 
then,  to  speak  of  death,  in  this  case  as  a  legal  pe- 


49 


nalty,  is  to  suppose  him  to  argue  from  a  fact, 
which  directly  contradicts  his  own  doctrine, — to 
argue  from  the  prevalence  of  death  during  a  pe¬ 
riod,  in  which  there  was  no  law  that  had  death  as 
its  penalty.  The  object  of  the  apostle,  then,  in 
referring  to  this  period,  is  obvious.  It  was  to 
show,  that  death  as  an  event  common  to  all  men , 
did  not  come  upon  them  as  the  penalty  of  any  law 
whatever ;  but  as  an  immediate  consequence  of 
personal  sin,  and  remotely  (in  the  manner  before 
described)  as  the  consequence  of  Adam’s  sin. 
Thus  he  proved  from  the  universality  of  death,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  original  sentence  under  an  economy 
of  grace ,  that  all  men  were  under  sin  and  con¬ 
demnation. 

But  our  brethren  think,  that  the  apostle  ap¬ 
pealed  to  the  prevalence  of  death  from  Adam  to 
Moses,  for  the  very  purpose  of  showing,  that 
death  during  this  period,  came  on  men  as  the  le¬ 
gal  penalty  of  Adam’s  sin.  If  this  opinion  can 
be  shown  to  be  wholly  groundless,  the  main  point 
at  issue  will  be  decided.  We  ask,  then,  how  does 
the  prevalence  of  death  from  Adam  to  Moses, 
prove  that  it  was  the  legal  penalty  of  Adam’s  sin  ? 
The  vast  multitude  destroyed  by  the  deluge  and 
in  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  are  well  known  to  have 
deserved  death  themselves  ;  to  have  died,  in  some 
respect  at  least  for  their  own  personal  sins.  How 
then  would  such  a  case  prove  that  men  died  solely 
for  the  sin  of  another?  Surely,  the  apostle  was 
unfortunate  in  referring  to  this  fact  to  prove,  that 
death  reigned  as  the  legal  penalty  of  Adam’s  sin 
exclusively,  or  in  any  respect  whatever.” 

We  insert  the  above  extract  in  this  place,  be- 

0 


50 


cause,  in  connection  with  another  position,  that 
the  sin  of  which  the  Apostle  speaks,  is  exclusively 
actual  sin ,  it  expresses,  in  general,  the  views  of 
all,  on  the  subject  we  are  discussing,  who  have 
adopted  the  New-Haven  creed,  or,  as  it  is  termed 
by  others,  the  New  School  system ;  and  because 
a  few  remarks  upon  it  may  tend  to  farther  eluci¬ 
date  and  confirm  the  exposition  that  we  have  given 
of  the  whole  passage  under  consideration.  The 
•  Spectator  is  published  at  New-Haven,  and  is  un¬ 
derstood  to  be  under  the  supervision  of  Drs.  Tay¬ 
lor  and  Fitch,  and  some  others  of  the  same  faith. 
The  system,  which  they  have  adopted  and  are 
strenuously  endeavoring  to  propagate,  though  com¬ 
monly  greeted  with  the  epithet  neiv,  is,  in  its  prin¬ 
cipal  features,  as  old  as  Pelagius  himself.  The 
view,  which  they  take  of  the  law,  prior  to  the  time 
of  Moses,  as  containing  no  threatening  of  death 
against  its  transgressors,  originated  we  believe 
with  Mr.  Locke,  and  was  embraced  by  Drs.  Whit¬ 
by  and  Taylor  of  Norwich,  all  three  being  deeply 
tinctured  with  Pelagianism  on  the  subject  of  origi¬ 
nal  sin,  and  especially  the  last,  of  whom,  a  cotem- 
poraneous  writer  observed,  that,  “  being  mounted 
as  it  were  on  the  shoulders  of  Dr.  Whitby  and  Mr. 
Locke,  he  has  pretended  to  see  farther  than  either 
of  them,  and  to  reject  every  particular  article  al- 


51 


most,  even  the  most  essential,  of  Christian  faith 
and  gospel  doctrine.”  Between  this  English  Dr. 
Taylor  and  our  own  Dr.  Taylor  there  appears  to  be 
the  closest  harmony  of  sentiment,  respecting  the 
great  leading  “articles  of  Christian  faith  and  gos¬ 
pel  doctrine.”  Hence,  what  is  called  Taylorism 
among  us  may  be  regarded  as  the  progeny  of  either 
of  these  fathers ,  without  any  serious  injury  to  the 
lawful  claims  of  paternity. 

The  foregoing  extract  is,  in  our  opinion,  replete 
with  bold  assertion,  specious  sophistry,  gross  con¬ 
tradiction  and  palpable  error :  And  under  this  con¬ 
viction,  we  proceed  to  make  some  strictures  upon 
it,  in  the  following  sections  : 

Sec.  2. — Of  a  Misrepresentation  contained  in  the 

Extract. 

The  gentlemen  of  the  Spectator  entirely  mis¬ 
understand,  or  misrepresent  the  views  of  genuine 
Calvinists,  when  they  represent  them  as  maintain¬ 
ing,  that  “men  die  solely  for  the  sin  of  another,” 
and  that  “death  is  the  legal  penalty  of  Adam’s  sin 
exclusively.”  This  they  regard  as  a  very  horrible 
doctrine.  And  perhaps  an  Atheist,  or  Deist  might 
regard  as  equally  horrible  their  doctrine,  in  making 
death  to  be  the  consequence  of  Adam’s  sin ;  espe¬ 
cially  when  they  cannot  or  will  not  tell  us  what 


52 


kind  of  consequence  they  mean.  But  do  Calvin¬ 
ists  maintain  the  sentiment  here  imputed  to  them  ? 
We  aver,  that  in  no  case,  do  they  make  death  to 
be  exclusively  the  legal  penalty  of  Adam’s  sin.  In 
the  case  of  adults ,  they  find  many  actual  sins ,  as 
well  as  the  imputed  sin  of  Adam,  all  demanding 
the  infliction  of  death.  It’is  in  the  case  of  infants 
alone,  who  are  chargable  with  no  actual,  personal 
sin,  that  they  have  recourse  to  the  “imputed  sin 
of  Adam,”  to  account  for  their  death.  And  even 
here,  they  do  not  consider,  that  it  is  the  sin  of 
Adam  as  such,  but  his  sin  as  being  their  federal 
representative,  and  as  imputed  to  them,  or  judi¬ 
cially  reckoned  theirs ,  that  procures  their  death. 
Nor  is  this  all ;  they  also  take  into  the  account, 
the  corruption  of  their  nature,  which  penally  flows 
from  that  imputation,  and  which  justly  classifies 
them  with  legal  delinquents,  and  accordingly  ex¬ 
poses  them  to  the  penalty  of  the  law.  Hence  the 
unbiassed  reader  will  perceive,  that  Calvanists  (pro] 
perly  so  called)  hold  an  entirely  different  creed  on 
this  point,  from  that  which  the  New-Haven  School 
would  unjustly  impute  to  them. 


53 


Sec.  S. — A  Mistake  corrected ,  in  respect  to  the 

Meaning  of  the  term  “  Death  f  as  vsed  by  the 

Apostle. 

In  the  foregoing  extract  it  is  taken  for  granted, 
that  the  Apostle,  in  the  passage  under  considera¬ 
tion,  means,  by  the  term  death ,  nothing  more  than 
temporal  death.  The  gentlemen  say,  “We  sup¬ 
pose  it  will  be  admitted,  that  the  Apostle  here  re¬ 
fers  to  the  sentence  denounced  after  the  fall  upon 
Adam  and  his  race.”  This  is  not  admitted  by  Cal¬ 
vinists.  They  understand  the  Apostle  as  referring 
to  the  penalty  threatened  before  the  fall,  in  those 
words  of  awful  import,  “Thou  shalt  surely  die 
concerning  which,  the  gentlemen  themselves,  in 
another  part  of  the  article  from  which  we  have 
extracted  the  above,  say,  “The  penalty  annexed 
to  the  law  was  1  Thou  shalt  surely  die.’  It  was 
death  as  the  full  retribution  of  sin.  It  was  death 
in  sin ;  and  considered  as  the  language  of  a  Jewish 
historian,  and  as  Jewish  phraseology,  perpetuated 
and  fully  explained  in  the  New  Testament,  we  can 
be  at  no  loss  concerning  its  comprehensive  and  aw¬ 
ful  import,  when  applied  to  an  immortal  being.” 
But  where  in  the  New  Testament  is  this  “  Jewish 
phraseology  perpetuated  and  fully  explained,”  with 
greater  clearness  and  with  more  manifest  and  ex- 
plicit  intention,  than  by  the  Apostle  in  this  very 


5* 


54 


passage  ?  Is  lie  not  contrasting  the  death ,  which 
came  by  the  disobedience  of  Adam,  with  the  life , 
which  comes  by  the  obedience  of  Christ?  Can 
he,  then,  be  understood  as  speaking  only  of  tem¬ 
poral  death  and  contrasting  it  with  that  eternal 
life ,  which  is  by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  ?  Surely 
the  life ,  of  which  he  speaks,  is  comprehensive  of 
the  greatest  good,  nay,  of  all  the  good,  which  the 
believer  in  Jesus  will  ever  enjoy  ;  must  not  the 
death,  then,  with  which  it  is  contrasted,  comprehend 
the  greatest  evil,  and  all  the  evil,  which  mankind 
deserve  on  account  of  sin  ?  But  what  is  temporal 
death,  that  the  Apostle  should  be  supposed  to  take 
such  particular  pains  in  drawing  a  contrast  be¬ 
tween  it  and  eternal  life  ?  Is  it  the  principal  evil 
which  arises  from  sin  ?  Is  it  the  greatest  evil  de¬ 
nounced  against  sin  ?  Indeed,  if  we  understand 
these  divines,  they  will  scarcely  allow  it  to  be  an  evil 
at  all ;  they  expressly  deny  that  it  is  a  penal  evil, 
and  seem  to  insinuate,  that  it  is  a  blessing,  because 
resulting  from  a  sentence  pronounced  under  an 
economy  of  grace.  Bo  they,  then,  really  “sup¬ 
pose  it  will  be  admitted,”  that  the  Apostle  is  here 
diverting  himself  by  forming  a  contrast  between 
that  death,  which  according  to  them  is  not  a  penal 
evil,  but  perhaps  a  blessing,  and  that  life,  which 
flows  through  the  merits  of  a  Saviour — even  that 


55 


eternal  life  which  is  the  gift  of  God  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord  ?  Moreover,  what  conclusively 
settles  the  meaning  of  the  term  “death,”  in  the 
passage  referred  to,  is,  that  it  alternates  with  the 
term  “  condemnation.”  Thus,  while  in  one  verse 
the  Apostle  declares,  that  ‘  ‘  death  reigned  by  one,” 
in  another  he  declares,  that  ‘  ‘  the  judgment  was  by 
one  to  condemnation.”  And  while  he  again  as¬ 
serts,  that  “  by  one  man’s  sin  death  entered  into 
the  world  and  passed  upon  all  men,”  he  repeats 
the  assertion,  saying,  that  “by  the  offense  of  one, 
judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation.” 
Now  can  any  person  seriously  affirm,  that  the 
Apostle  by  the  term  “condemnation”  (xctraxpipu') 
only  intends  temporal  death  ?  And  if  he  intends 
by  it  something  more  than  temporal  death,  so  he 
must  also,  by  that  other  term,  with  which  it  is 
made  to  alternate. 

Sec.  4. — Concerning  the  Statement ,  that  “  Tempo¬ 
ral  Death  forms  no  part  of  the  legal  penalty.'" 

These  divines,  with  great  confidence,  assert, 
that  “the  Apostle  teaches,  that  death  considered 
as  an  event  common  to  all  men,  is  not  a  legal  pe¬ 
nalty  that  “in  the  very  passage  under  consider¬ 
ation,  he  has  directly  and  formally  disproved  the 
doctrine,  that  death  comes  on  men  as  the  penalty 


56 


of  any  law  whatever and  again,  that  “  he  proves 
that  it  is  not  the  legal  penalty  of  sin,  according  to 
any  law  whatever.”  This  is  making  the  Apostle, 
indeed,  teach  strange  doctrine.  But  if  he  teaches 
such  doctrine,  how  came  they  to  tell  us,  that 
“the  vast  multitude  destroyed  by  the  deluge  and 
in  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  are  well  known  to  have 
deserved  death  themselves  ;  to  have  died,  in  some 
respect  at  least,  for  their  own  personal  sins.”  If 
the  persons  alluded  to  ‘ 1  dese7'ved  death  and  died 
for  their  own  personal  sins,”  does  not  this  look  as 
if  their  death  were  “the  legal  penalty  of  sin'?” 
Surely  if  they  deserved  death  it  must  have  been 
according  to  the  sanction  of  the  law  ;  and  if  they 
died  for  their  own  personal  sins,  their  death  must 
have  happened  according  to  the  “  legal  penalty” 
threatened  against  sin.  We  think,  that  by  refer¬ 
ring  us  to  the  death  of  the  Antediluvians  Sic., 
these  divines  have  disproved  their  own  position, 
that  “death  is  not  the  legal  penalty  of  sin,  ac¬ 
cording  to  any  law  whatever.”  But  they  may 
tell  us,  that  they  only  mean,  that  those  sinners 
deserved  death  as  the  consequence  of  sin,  and  un¬ 
derwent  death,  as  a  consequence ,  for  their  own  per¬ 
sonal  sins.  They  make  a  great  parade  of  the 
term  “consequence.”  They  are  willing  to  admit, 
that  death  is  “an  immediate  consequence  of  per- 


57 


sonal  sin,  and  remotely  the  consequence  of  Adam’s 
sin.”  Their  manner  of  using  this  term  is  calcu¬ 
lated  to  deceive.  We  might  suppose,  they  meant 
to  express,  by  it,  the  penal  effect  of  sin,  did  they 
not  occasionally  use  it  in  contrast  with  the  term 
“penalty.”  We  acknowledge,  that  death  is  the 
consequence  of  sin  ;  but  alas,  it  is  its  penal  con- 
consequence  !  They  ought  therefore  to  define  to 
the  Christian  community  what  they  exactly  mean 
by  that  term,  as  they  use  it  in  the  present  contro¬ 
versy  ;  and  especially  since  they  elsewhere  inform 
us,  that  “  there  are  many  modes  of  consequence.” 
Presuming  to  set  aside  a  term  long  used  in  the 
Christian  Church,  and  to  introduce  a  new  one, 
they  should  have  clearly  and  unambiguously  de¬ 
fined  it. 

But  is  it  really  so,  that  temporal  death  forms  no 
part  of  “the  legal  penalty  of  sin?”  Has  it  never 
come  upon  any  of  the  race  of  Adam  as  a  penal 
infliction  ?  Must  we,  indeed,  believe,  that  persons, 
who  have  perished  from  the  earth  by  the  manifest 
judgments  of  heaven,  and  been  cut  off  in  the  most 
terrible  manner  in  the  very  act  of  sinning  against 
God,  suffered  nothing  of  a  penal  nature  in  the 
death  which  overtook  them,  nothing  of  “the  legal 
penalty  of  sin,  according  to  any  law  whatever?” 
These  divines  say  of  our  doctrine  concerning 


58 


Original  Sin,  that  “it  is  contrary  to  the  decision 
of  the  competent  unperverted  reason  of  mankind.” 
Were  we  sure  that  mankind  possessed  such  reason, 
touching  “the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,”  we 
should  certainly  be  willing  to  leave  to  its  decision 
their  doctrine  respecting  death. 

Sec.  5. — The  Introduction  of  an  “  Economy  of 

Grace  f  no  Proof  of  the  Repeal  of  any  Part 

of  the  Legal  Penalty. 

Let  us  see  how  these  divines  prove,  that  death 
is  not  the  penalty  of  sin.  This  they  do  by  refer¬ 
ring  us  to  the  time,  when  the  sentence  of  death 
was  first  pronounced  upon  fallen  man.  Immedi¬ 
ately  after  the  gracious  declaration,  respecting  the 
Seed  of  the  woman,  was  made,  God  said  to  Adam, 
“dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return.” 
Hence  they  tell  us,  that  death,  being  denounced 
under  an  economy  of  Grace ,  cannot  be  a  legal  pe¬ 
nalty.  “For,”  say  they,  “as  we  have  shown 
(p.  314,)  that  sentence  was  not  the  sentence  of 
the  laiv ,  nor  was  its  execution  the  penalty  of  the 
law.”  We  have  examined  the  place  referred  to, 
but  cannot  discover  the  proof  of  what  they  here 
assert.  Now,  when  they  speak  of  “  a  sentence 
denounced ,  after  the  fall,  upon  Adam  and  his  race,” 
and  elsewhere  of  “men  being  doomed  to  temporal 


59 


death  by  a  sentence  under  grace,”  are  we  not  to 
understand  them  as  making  death  an  evil  f  For 
certainly  it  is  not  usual  to  denounce  a  benefit  on 
people,  or  doom  them  to  a  blessing !  Accordingly, 
we  have  here  a  sentence  denouncing  evil  upon 
man,  which,  they  say,  is  “not  the  sentence  of  the 
law,  nor  its  execution  the  penalty  of  the  law  !” 
A  very  strange  sentence,  indeed,  to  issue  from  the 
righteous  tribunal  of  Jehovah  !  We  should  say, 
that  a  sentence  denouncing  evil,  was  a  penal  sen¬ 
tence,  and  if  given  correctly,  a  legal  sentence. 
But  according  to  these  divines,  this  sentence  was 
not  by  the  “law  of  works,”  but  by  the  “law  of 
faith,”  or  law  of  grace,  for  before  it  was  issued, 
mankind  were  placed  under  an  economy  of  grace . 
From  this  we  ought  to  infer,  that  death  in  every 
instance,  from  the  fall  of  Adam  till  the  present 
time,  has  been  a  blessing  and  not  an  evil.  There¬ 
fore,  though  the  Antediluvians,  the  Sodomites, 
the  Egyptians,  the  Amorites  &lc.,  all  died  in  the 
most  fearful  manner,  yet  their  death  was  a  blessing 
and  not  an  evil,  at  least  no  part  of  the  legal  pe¬ 
nalty ;  for  they  all  died  under  “an  economy  of 
grace  !” 

We  acknowledge,  indeed,  that  immediately  af¬ 
ter  the  fall,  a  merciful  God  revealed  a  plan  of  sal¬ 
vation  by  free  grace :  But  that  revelation,  by  no 


60 


means,  repealed  any  part  of  the  penalty  of  God’s 
unalterable  law  ;  so  far  from  this,  it  distinctly 
showed  in  the  predicted  bruising  of  the  heel  of 
the  woman’s  Seed,  that  the  penalty  was  to  be 
fully  endured  and  not  one  iota  of  it  to  be  discard¬ 
ed  :  And  hence  it  also  showed,  that  the  only  way 
to  escape  the  penalty  was  to  embrace  by  faith  the 
promised  Redeemer. 

We  object  to  the  notion,  that  would  place,  m  con¬ 
sequence  of  the  first  promise,  all  mankind  of  every 
age  and  nation  under  “  an  economy  of  grace;”  if 
by  that  phraseology,  it  be  meant,  that  they  have 
all  enjoyed  sufficient  means  of  grace  and  would 
have  been  saved,  had  they  only  used  them  aright. 
And  we  have  reason  to  believe,  that  such  are  se¬ 
cretly  the  views  of  the  divines,  whom  we  are  op¬ 
posing,  from  a  consideration  of  the  source,  whence 
they  have  borrowed  this  notion  about  “  an  econ¬ 
omy  of  grace.”  But  it  is  not  our  business  at  pre¬ 
sent  to  examine  this  point.  The  question  is,  whe¬ 
ther  the  revelation  of  Grace  in  the  first  promise 
repealed  that  part  of  the  penalty  of  the  divine  law, 
which  related  to  temporal  death.  And  we  most 
unequivocally  assert,  that  it  has  not.  For,  except 
in  the  case  of  believers  in  that  promise,  the  scrip¬ 
tures  invariably  teach,  that  temporal  death  consti¬ 
tutes  a  part  of  the  legal  penalty. 


61 


Sec.  6. — Proofs  that  Temporal  Death  does  belong 
to  the  Legal  Penalty. 

That  temporal  death  constitutes  a  part  of  the 
legal  penalty  we  feel  bound  to  maintain  : 

Because,  the  Apostle  assures  us,  in  (Rom.  vi. 
23,)  that  “the  wages  of  sin  is  death,55  without 
distinguishing  between  the  first  and  the  second 
death ;  clearly  intimating  that  death,  under  every 
form,  in  itself  considered,  is  the  wages ,  or  just  de¬ 
sert  of  sin. 

Elsewhere  he  informs  us  that  “  the  stino-  of 
death  is  sin,  and  the  strength  of  sin  is  the  law.55 
(1.  Cor.  xv.  56.)  Is  it  possible  to  assert  in  plain¬ 
er  or  stronger  terms,  that  “death  is  the  legal  pe¬ 
nalty  of  sin.”  Here  are  three  things,  the  law ,  sin 
and  death.  Sin  is  the  connecting  link  between  the 
law  and  death,  and  receives  from  the  law  its 
strength  or  power  to  render  death  hurtful.  The 
death  spoken  of  is  obviously  temporal  death  ;  sin 
is  called  its  sting — a  sting  containing  the  venom  of 
of  the  curse,  otherwise  it  would  be  a  harmless 
sting  ;  and  this  sting  (which  is  sin)  we  are  told, 
has  all  its  power  from  the  law ,  that  is,  from  its  au¬ 
thority  and  sanction.  Is  there,  therefore,  nothing 
legal  in  that  strength  or  power  to  injure,  which 
sin  derives  from  the  law?  And  is  there  nothing 
penal  in  that  death,  which  has  sin  for  its  sting,  or 

6 


02 


comes  armed  with  it,  as  its  mortal  weapon?  Be¬ 
sides,  the  believer  is  presented  to  us  as  glorying 
over  death,  triumphantly  shouting,  “  O  death 
where  is  thy  sting?”  Is  there  nothing  peculiar 
in  his  case  ?  Or  is  it  the  privilege  of  all  men  with¬ 
out  exception  to  greet  “the  king  of  terrors”  as  an 
unstinged  and  harmless  enemy  ?  Surely  then,  the 
scripture  referred  to,  solemnly  teaches,  that  all, 
who  do  not  obtain  “the  victory  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,”  must  meet  death  as  “  the  legal  pe¬ 
nalty  of  sin.” 

And  corresponding  to  this,  the  Apostle  ( 1  Cor. 
iii.  21,  22,)  says  to  believers,  “all  things  are 
yours,”  and  expressly  names  “death”  as  one  of 
these  things.  Now,  does  not  this  imply,  that  death 
comes  to  a  believer  in  a  different  manner  from 
what  it  does  to  an  unbeliever  ?  And  wherein  lies 
the  difference,  except  that  to  the  one  it  comes  as  a 
penalty,  while  to  the  other  it  comes  divested  of  its 
penal  form  ?  To  say,  indeed,  of  the  dying  repro¬ 
bate,  that  there  is  nothing  penal  in  his  death — to 
say,  that  he  whom  Jehovah  pronounces  to  be 
“  cursed  in  his  basket  and  store,  and  in  his  lying 
down  and  rising  up,”  is  not  cursed  in  his  dying,  or 
does  not  undergo  a  cursed  death ,  sounds,  to  say 
the  least  of  it,  exceedingly  strange!  “Christ  hath 
redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being 


63 


made  a  curse  for  us  ;  for  it  written  cursed  is 
every  one  that  hangeth  on  &  tree.”  Was  there 
nothing  of  the  curse  ?  was  there  nothing  penal  in 
the  temporal  death  of  the  Son  of  God  in  our  na¬ 
ture?  This  will  be  denied  by  none  but  Socinians, 
or  such  as  are  socinianizing.  But  if  Christ’s  death, 
viewed  in  its  temporal  aspect,  as  relating  to  the 
dissolution  of  the  union  between  his  human  soul 
and  body,  was  penal ,  was  the  effect  of  the  curse , 
let  no  man  or  body  of  men  have  the  presumption 
to  tell  us,  that  death  is  not  a  “  legal  penalty.” 
Will  it  then,  we  ask,  be  said,  in  the  face  of  the 
foregoing  testimonies,  that  death  is  never  “the 
legal  penalty  of  sin  according  to  any  law  what¬ 
ever  ?” 

But  besides  the  evidence  already  adduced,  we 
have  abundance  of  other  proof  in  the  word  of  God, 
to  convict  these  divines  of  holding  an  egregious 
error.  The  same  Apostle  declares  concerning 
the  Gentiles,  (Rom.  i.  32)  that  they  “  knew 
the  judgment  of  God,  that  they  who  committed 
such  things  [as  he  had  been  specifying]  were  worthy 
of  death.”  These  blinded  heathen,  without  the 
aid  of  supernatural  revelation,  or  even  much  learn- 
ing,  appear  to  have  had  a  more  correct  knowledge 
of  the  penal  sanction  of  God’s  law,  than  the  Rev. 
gentlemen,  we  are  opposing.  From  their  natural 


64 


i 


impressions  respecting  the  nature  of  the  divine 
law,  and  respecting  the  judgment ,  threatening ,  or 
righteous  appointment  of  the  Great  Lawgiver,  they 
knew ,  that  death  was  justly  merited,  as  a  punish¬ 
ment  for  such  sins  as  the  Apostle  specifies.  For 
to  know ,  that  men  are  worthy  of  death ,  by  the 
judgment  of  God ,  for  a  violation  of  his  law ,  is  un¬ 
questionably  to  know  that  u  death  is  the  legal  pe¬ 
nalty  of  sin.”  And  that  the  Gentiles  had  this 
knowledge  the  Apostle  expressly  declares ;  and, 
indeed,  the  same  is  manifest  from  the  whole  his¬ 
tory  of  their  sacrifices.  Did  they  not  frequently 
offer  up  sacrifices  and  some  of  these  of  the  most 
costly  nature,  on  purpose  to  appease  the  wrath  of 
Deity,  that  it  might  not  visit  them  with  temporal 
calamities,  with  temporal  death,  on  account  of 
their  transgressions  ?  And  does  the  Apostle  inti¬ 
mate,  that  their  knowledge  on  this  point,  so  far  as 
it  extended,  was  incorrect  1  Does  not  his  manner 
of  expression  clearly  imply,  that  he  regarded  their 
knowledge  as  being  truly  consistent  with  the  char¬ 
acter  of  the  divine  law  ? 

Again,  the  scriptures  furnish  us  with  some  no¬ 
table  instances,  where  sin  is  expressly  assigned  as 
the  penal  cause  of  death.  In  relation  to  the  death 
of  the  Antediluvians  by  the  deluge,  we  read, 
“And  God  saw  that  the  tiickedness  of  man  was 


65 


great  in  the  earth — And  the  Lord  said  I  will  de¬ 
stroy  man,  whom  I  have  created  from  the  face  of 
the  earth.”  In  relation  to  the  death  of  the  in¬ 
habitants  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  by  fire  and 
brimstone  from  heaven,  we  read,  “And  the  Lord 
said,  because  the  cry  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  is 
great,  and  because  their  sin  is  very  grievous ;  I 
will  go  down  now,”  &c.  The  angels  ordered  Lot 
to  take  his  family  and  depart  from  Sodom,  “  lest,” 
say  they,  “thou  be  consumed  in  the  iniquity  of 
the  city,”  or  as  judicious  interpreters  understand 
it,  “  in  the  punishment  of  the  city.”  Were  not 
the  Egyptians  also  drowned  in  the  Red  Sea  for 
their  most  deliberate  rebellion  against  God  ?  The 

o 

Israelites,  in  their  song  of  deliverance,  say,  “  In 
the  greatness  of  thine  excellency,  thou  hast  over¬ 
thrown  them  that  rose  up  against  thee ;  thou  sent- 
est  forth  thy  wrath,  which  consumed  them  as 
stubble.”  And  how  are  we  to  justify  God’s  pro¬ 
cedure,  in  cutting  off  the  nations  of  Canaan  and 
giving  their  land  to  the  children  of  Israel,  if  their 
death  was  not  merited  by  their  crimes,  and  was  not 
sent  upon  them  as  a  penal  infliction  ?  Besides  these 
instances,  look  also  at  the  case  of  Er  and  Onan  ; 
concerning  whose  death  and  the  cause  of  it,  we 
thus  read,  (Gen.  xxxviii.  7.  10.)  “  And  Er  was 

wicked  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord;  and  the  Lord 

6* 


66 


slew  him.”  “  And  the  thing,  which  he  (Onan) 
did,  displeased  the  Lord ;  wherefore  he  sleiv  him 
also.”  Now  if  their  death  was  not  deserved,  as  a 
punishment  for  their  sins  and  inflicted  on  them  as 
such,  it  is  impossible  to  understand  the  plainest 
language.  Indeed,  to  view  their  death  in  any  oth¬ 
er  light,  would  be  to  represent  the  righteous  Lord 
as  having  acted  towards  them  in  an  arbitrary  and 
capricious  manner,  giving  vent  to  his  displeasure, 
as  earthly  tyrants  are  sometimes  wont  to  do. 
Thus,  we  apprehend  that  we  have  conclusively 
proved  from  the  Holy  Scriptures  that  death  is  to 
be  considered,  as  included  in  the  “  legal  penalty  of 
sin. 

Sec.  7. — The  Ante-Mosaic  Period  not  Peculiarized 
by  the  Fact ,  that  “  There  was  no  Law  threaten¬ 
ing  Death ,  as  its  Penalty .” 

Notwithstanding  the  foregoing  proofs,  the  New*- 
Haven  gentlemen  tell  us,  that  “  the  Apostle,  in 
the  very  passage  under  consideration,  has  directly 
and  formally  disproved  the  doctrine,  that  death 
comes  on  men  as  the  penalty  of  any  law  what¬ 
ever.”  How  ?  Why,  say  they,  by  referring  us  to 
a  period,  viz:  that  from  Adam  to  Moses,  “in 
which  there  was  no  law  threatening  death  as  its 
penalty.”  Supposing  this  were  so,  it  by  no  means 


67 


proves  their  assertion,  “that  death  is  not  the  pe¬ 
nalty  of  sin  according  to  any  law  whatever  for 
they  admit,  that  during  the  Mosaic  economy,  there 
was  a  law  threatening  death  as  its  penalty.  But  is 
it  true  that  during  the  period  referred  to,  “there 
was  no  law  threatening  death  as  its  penalty?” 
The  falsity  of  this  position  must  appear  obvious 
to  the  unbiassed  reader,  from  what  has  already 
been  stated.  The  moral  law  of  God  is  unchange¬ 
able  in  its  threatenings  against  sin.  Its  preceptive 
nature  and  its  penal  threatening  are  essentially 
and  inseparably  connected  together.  It  did  not, 
therefore,  threaten  any  thing  yesterday,  which  it 
does  not  to-day,  and  will  not  to-morrow.  It  is 
not  to  be  charged  with  partiality ;  as  if  it  threat¬ 
ened  greater  evils  against  the  men  of  one  age  than 
those  of  another ;  or  greater  evils  against  a  par¬ 
ticular  nation,  than  all  other  nations.  But  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  doctrine  of  these  divines,  the  law  of  the 
Lord,  “  which  endureth  forever,”  is  both  alter¬ 
able  and  partial :  According  to  them,  it  is  not 
founded  in  principles  of  eternal  rectitude,  but  flows 
from  the  mere  will  and  caprice  of  an  arbitrary 
Lawgiver.  We  cannot  subscribe  to  a  sentiment 
so  abhorent  both  to  reason  and  revelation. 

Now,  the  testimonies,  which  we  have  adduced, 
to  prove,  that  “  death  is  the  legal  penalty  of  sin,” 

7 


08 


are  directly  in  the  face  of  this  ingenious  contri¬ 
vance  respecting  the  state  of  the  law  from  Adam 
to  Moses  :  For  they  apply  to  that  period  with  as 
much  force  as  to  any  other  whatever.  Surely  the 
Apostle  cannot  be  understood  as  referring  to  the 
law  as  existing  under  some  Jeivish  ’peculiarity , 
when,  in  writing  to  churches  composed  principally 
of  Gentiles,  he  declares,  that  “  the  wages  of  sin 
is  death” — that,  “  the  sting  of  death  is  sin  and  the 
strength  of  sin  is  the  law”- — and  that,  the  Gentiles, 
who  were  without  the  written  law,  u  knew  the 
judgment  of  God,  that  they,  who  commit  such 
things,  are  worthy  of  death.”  We  have  seen, 
that  for  their  peculiar  wickedness  and  rebellion, 
God  in  the  most  terrible  manner  destroyed  the  old 
world  by  a  flood,  burned  up  the  inhabitants  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah  with  fire  and  brimstone,  and 
drowned  the  Egyptians  in  the  Red  Sea.  And  all 
this  destruction  of  human  life  happened  within  the 
period,  concerning  which,  it  is  maintained,  that 
there  “  was  no  law  threatening  death  as  its  pe¬ 
nalty  !”  The  deaths  also  of  Er  and  Onan  took 
place  in  the  same  period,  and  are  declared  (if  there 
be  any  certainty  of  meaning  in  language)  to  have 
been  inflicted  upon  them  for  their  personal  sins. 
“  And  Er  was  wicked  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  ; 
and  the  Lord  slew  him — And  the  thing,  which  he 


0 


l 


60 


(Onan)  did,  displeased  the  Lord  ;  wherefore  lie 
slew  him  also.”  Now  we  ask,  according  to  what 
rule  of  equity,  were  these  men,  and  the  others  refer¬ 
red  to,  destroyed  from  the  face  of  the  earth,  on 
account  of  their  sins,  if  there  were  fio  law  in  ex¬ 
istence  threatening  death  as  the  punishment  of 
sin?  Let  this  question  be  answered  if  it  can, 
without  implicating  the  judicial  character  of  the 
Governor  among  the  nations. 

But,  say  the  gentlemen  of  the  Spectator,  “  This 
period  was  obviously  distinguished  by  some  pe- 
culiarity ,  decisive  in  its  bearing  on  the  Apostle’s 
argument  and  they  conclude,  that  this  pe¬ 
culiarity  could  be  no  other  than  the  fact,  that  then 
“there  was  no  law  threatening  death,  as  its  pe¬ 
nalty.”  This  peculiarity,  they  inform  us,  ceased 
when  the  law  was  given  by  Moses ;  then ,  as  in  the 
case  of  Adam  before  the  fall,  the  law  was  made  to 
threaten  death  as  the  penalty  of  sin ;  then ,  that 
threatening  of  the  law  was  revived,  which  had  lain 
dead  about  the  space  of  twenty-five  hundred  years, 
ever  since  Adam  ate  the  forbidden  fruit.  And  was 
this  the  peculiar  kindness,  which  Jehovah  showed 
towards  the  chosen  seed  of  Abraham  his  friend  ? 
Is  this  what  the  Psalmist  means,  when  he  says, 
“  He  hath  not  dealt  so  with  any  nation?”  It  i3 
indeed  difficult  to  conceive  how  it  comports  with 


70 


mat  special  goodness ,  which  the  scriptures  every 
where  represent  Jehovah,  as  manifesting  to  his 
“peculiar  people,”  if,  when  he  took  them  into 
external  covenant  with  himself  at  Mount  Sinai,  he 
added  to  the  law  a  threatening  of  death,  which 
had  been  repealed  for  so  many  ages,  and  which 
was  still  left  repealed,  in  the  case  of  all  other  na¬ 
tions  !  Besides,  if  the  nation  of  Israel  existed  un¬ 
der  a  law,  threatening  them  with  death  for  every 
transgression,  and,  in  this  respect,  differed  from 
those,  who  lived  in  the  Ante-Mosaic  period,  and 
from  all  other  nations  of  the  earth ;  might  we  not 
have  expected  to  find  them  suffering  death  in  a 
more  terrible  and  exemplary  manner,  or  in  a  man¬ 
ner  more  indicative  of  the  righteous  displeasure 
of  Jehovah,  than  all  other  people  of  all  other  ages 
and  nations?  But  was  this  the  case?  Or  will 
any  dare  assert  it? — From  all  these  considerations, 
then,  is  it  not  plain  ?  is  it  not  proved,  that  the 
gentlemen,  as  well  as  Mr.  Locke  and  all  who  have 
adopted  his  sentiment,  have  entirely  mistaken  the 
peculiarity,  which  the  Apostle  identifies  with  the 
Ante-Mosaic  period,  and  have  erred  in  making  him 
teach  (what  he  never  taught,)  that  during  that 
period  “there  was  no  law  threatening  death  as  its 
penalty  ?” 

But  might  there  not  have  been  some  peculiarity 


71 


connected  with  that  period,  “  decisive  in  its  bear¬ 
ing  on  the  Apostle’s  argument,”  other,  than  the 
one  we  have  now  considered,  and  which  we  have 
shown  was  no  peculiarity  at  all  ?  It  must  be  ad¬ 
mitted,  that  from  Adam  to  Moses,  the  law  was 
not  so  clearly  and  so  fully  made  known,  both  in  its 
precept  and  penalty,  as  it  was  at  the  expiration  of 
that  period.  That  was  emphatically  a  “dark  age” 
in  respect  of  divine  revelation.  A  sufficiency  of 
light  was  indeed  enjoyed,  to  conduct  the  chosen 
of  God  from  this  dark  world  to  realms  of  light  and 
glory ;  but  still  when  compared  with  the  Mosaic 
economy,  and  much  more  so,  with  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  economy,  it  possessed  a  comparative  obscu¬ 
rity.  Every  economy  has  its  peculiarity  in  point 
of  light.  The  present  in  this  respect  excels  the 
former.  And  were  we,  while  speaking  on  the 
subject  of  faith  and  salvation,  to  say,  that 
even  before  Christ  came  in  the  flesh,  persons 
believed  in  him  and  were  saved ;  none  would  be 
at  a  loss  to  understand  the  intended  peculiarity  of 
the  period  referred  to.  So  the  Apostle,  speaking 
of  sin  and  death,  which  can  have  no  existence 
when  there  is  no  law,  informs  the  church  at  Rome, 
that  these  existed  in  the  world,  even  before  the 
law  was  promulged  to  Israel,  from  the  top  of  Sinai, 
m  that  clear,  glorious  and  truly  magnificent  man- 


72 


ner,  with  which  all  were  acquainted  who  posses¬ 
sed  “  the  lively  Oracles.”  There  could  be  no  dif¬ 
ficulty  in  tracing  the  existence  of  sin  and  death, 
after  the  fiery  law  was  issued  from  Mount  Sinai ; 
but  the  Apostle,  to  strengthen  his  argument,  in  his 
wisdom,  refers  to  a  period  in  which  the  law  was 
less  clearly  revealed.  And  comparative  obscurity , 
being  the  grand  peculiarity  of  the  Ante-Mosaic  pe¬ 
riod,  the  Apostle  refers  to  that  period,  in  proof  of 
the  proposition,  which  he  had  just  stated,  viz  : 
“  all  have  sinned.”  Because,  if  there  were  any 
exceptions,  they  must  surely  have  been  found  in 
the  darkness  of  that  period,  on  the  principle,  “to 
whom  little  is  given  of  them  little  will  be  re¬ 
quired.”  But  no  such  exceptions  were  then  to  be 
found,  as  was  evident,  from  the  universal  reign  of 
death.  And  indeed,  as  death  is  an  evidence  of 
the  previous  existence  of  sin,  the  Apostle’s  mind 
seems  to  have  been  directed  to  the  period  in  ques¬ 
tion,  on  account  of  the  immense  destruction  of  hu¬ 
man  life,  which  happened  in  the  deluge  and  in  the 
overthrow  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  and  the  cities 
of  the  plain,  by  the  manifest  judgments  of  God  ; 
and  particularly,  also,  on  account  of  the  vast  mul¬ 
titude  of  infants,  which  must  have  perished  in 
those  fearful  catastrophes.  Hence  his  allusion  to 
the  death  of  them,  “  that  had  not  sinned  after  the 


73 


similitude  of  Adam’s  transgression.”  Those,  whose 
views  we  are  opposing,  suppose  that  the  Apostle 
by  this  circumlocution  intends  actual  sinners,  who 
had  not  sinned  against  a  law  threatening  death  as 
a  penalty,  as  Adam  did.  To  admit  that  he  in¬ 
tended  infants  and  that  their  death  was  any  part  of 
the  legal  penalty,  would  be  to  admit  the  truth  of 
the  doctrine  of  “  Original  Sin  imputed.”  Hence 
their  position  that  the  Ante-Mosaic  period  was  pe- 
-culiarized  by  the  fact,  that  “there  was  no  law 
threatening  death,  as  its  penalty.”  But  as  we 
have  disproved  their  position,  we  feel  warranted 
to  rest  in  the  good  old  interpretation  of  the  words 
referred  to,  that  the  Apostle  intends  infants,  who 
had  not  sinned  actually  and  voluntarily ,  as  Adam 
did,  when  with  a  knowledge  of  the  sin  and  dan¬ 
ger,  he  ate  the  forbidden  fruit.  And  to  account 
for  their  death,  he  refers  to  the  representative 
character  of  Adam,  “who”  he  adds,  “was  the 
figure  of  him  that  was  to  come.” 

Sec.  3. — - Temporal  Death ,  under  whatever  Form 
it  comes ,  Proves  the  Previous  Existence  of  Sin 
in  its  Subject. 

The  geritlemen  of  the  Spectator,  finally,  give 
as  a  proof,  that  death  is  never  “the  legal  penalty 
of  sin,”  the  fact,  that  “many  who  die  are  delivered 

7 


74 


from  the  legal  penalty.”  Now,  we  cheerfully  ad¬ 
mit,  that  all,  who  die  in  the  Lord ,  are  delivered 
from  the  whole  penalty  of  the  law,  and  conse¬ 
quently  from  temporal  death,  viewed  as  a  penalty : 
For,  u  Christ  was  made  a  curse  for  them.”  But 
this  is  no  proof,  that  death  is  not  a  part  of  the  pe¬ 
nalty  in  the  case  of  all  others,  of  whom  it  is  writ¬ 
ten,  they  are  driven  away  in  their  wickedness. 
When  we  admit,  however,  that  there  is  nothing  pe¬ 
nal  in  the  death  of  the  righteous,  it  by  no  means 
follows,  that  we  destroy  the  argument,  in  favor  of 
the  imputation  of  Adam’s  sin  to  his  posterity, 
drawn  from  the  death  of  infants  :  Because,  it  be¬ 
ing  once  proved,  that  death,  by  the  appointment 
of  God,  is  the  penalty  of  sin,  the  fact  of  its  com¬ 
ing  to  a  human  being  in  another  form,  only  shows, 
that  that ,  which  renders  it  penal,  viz  :  sin,  has  been 
removed  by  a  pardon.  Had  not  grace  removed  the 
sin,  the  death  would  have  been  penal.  When  a 
person  dies,  his  death  is  either  penal,  or  it  is  not : 
If  penal,  he  dies  in  his  sin  ;  if  not  penal,  then,  his 
sin  has  been  remitted  through  the  merits  of  a  Sa- 
viour  :  So  that,  in  either  case,  the  fact  of  death 
proves  the  antecedent  existence  of  sin  in  its  sub¬ 
ject.  The  pardon  of  sin  was  not,  by  the  divine 
constitution,  to  prevent  death  entirely,  but  only  to 
change  its  penal  nature  and  convert  it  into  a  bles- 


» 


75 


sing.  Hence,  when  the  gracious  promise  was 
made  to  our  first  parents,  respecting  a  Saviour,  it 
was  plainly  intimated,  that  although  believing  in 
the  promise  would  afford  security  from  the  whole 
penalty  of  the  violated  law,  yet  that  branch  of  it 
which  related  to  temporal  death,  though  really 
changed  in  its  nature,  should  nevertheless  still 
continue  in  its  outward  form.  It  was,  as  if  God 
had  said  to  Adam,  “  in  believing  this  promise, 
which  I  have  now  revealed,  thou  shalt  indeed  be 
saved  from  all  the  penalty  involved  in  the  threat¬ 
ened  death — still,  as  dust  thou  art,  unto  dust 
thou  shalt  return.”  And  such  is  the  language  of 
God  to  every  one  of  his  children  :  By  his  grace 
he  pardons  them  and  delivers  them  from  all  penal 
evil,  both  here  and  hereafter,  yet  death  in  its  out¬ 
ward  and  visible  form  must  still  be  undergone — 
“  dust  thou  art  and  unto  dust  thou  shalt  return.” 
For  wise  and  obvious  reasons,  God  retains  the  out¬ 
ward  form  of  a  penal  evil,  while  all  that  is  penal  in 
it,  he  removes  by  his  grace.  Accordingly,  we  see 
what  the  law  makes  death,  and  what  pardoning 
grace  makes  it — The  one  makes  it  a  penalty ,  the 
other  a  blessing .  And  hence,  the  death  of  infants,  as 
they  are  subjects  of  law,  shows  conclusively  that 
they  are  reckoned  sinners,  whether  they  be  re~ 


/» 

/6 


yarded,  as  dying  under  the  curse  of  the  law,  or  de¬ 
livered  from  it  by  the  grace  of  the  New  Covenant. 

In  connection  with  this  point,  we  must  confess 
our  dullness  of  apprehension,  as  to  the  meaning 
of  these  divines,  according  to  their  own  scheme, 
when  they  tell  us,  that  the  Apostle,  in  the  passage 
under  consideration,  “  proves  from  the  universality 
of  death  that  all  men  are  under  sin  and  condem¬ 
nation.”  It  seems  to  be  here  acknowledged,  that 
sin  and  condemnation  must  be  as  universal  as 
death.  But  within  the  range  of  death’s  univer¬ 
sality,  numberless  infants  are  found  ;  therefore, 
the  Apostle  proves  that  infants  are  under  sin  and 
condemnation.  Or  do  they  mean  to  say,  that 
“  from  the  universality  of  death,  deducting  about 
one  fourth  for  the  death  of  infants,  the  Apostle 
proves  all  men  to  be  under  sin  and  condemna¬ 
tion?”  Or  do  they  only  mean  to  exclude  infants 
from  the  all  in  that  part  of  the  sentence,  which 
contains  their  conclusion,  and  assert,  that  “from 
the  universality  of  death  over  both  adults  and  in¬ 
fants,  the  Apostle  proves  all  adults  only  to  be  un¬ 
der  sin  and  condemnation  ?”  We  cannot  tell 
what  they  mean,  on  their  own  principles.  It 
would  seem,  they  had  lost  sight,  for  a  moment,  of 
their  favorite  system,  and  were  unconsciously  led 
to  the  very  threshold  of  truth. 


77 


Sec.  9. — Of  the  Kind  of  Sin  of  which  the  Apostle 

Ti'eats . 

In  the  same  article,  from  which  the  foregoino- 
extract  is  made,  the  New-Haven  divines  most  per¬ 
tinaciously  maintain,  that  the  sin  of  which  the 
Apostle  speaks,  in  the  scripture  under  considera¬ 
tion,  is  exclusively  actual  sin.  Now,  if  there  be 
no  such  thing  in  existence  as  imputed  sin ,  if  there 
be  no  other  sin,  in  the  empire  of  Jehovah,  than 
actual  sin ,  as  they  contend,  it  follows  as  a  matter 
of  course,  that  “the  sin,  of  which  the  Apostle 
speaks,  is  not  imputed  sin,  but  actual ,  personal  sin.” 
Hence  they  might  have  saved  themselves  the  labor 
of  attempting  to  prove  a  truism.  Indeed,  if  their 
definition  of  sin,  which  they  have  given  us  in  an¬ 
other  place,  be  correct,  there  is  an  end  at  once  to 
all  controversy  respecting  Original  Sin.  They 
boldly  tell  us,  that  all  sin  consists  in  the  Icnown 
transgression  of  law ,  and  is  the  voluntary  exercise , 
or  act  of  a  free  moral  agent ;  or,  according  to 
their  abridged  and  more  convenient  form  of  it, 
that  all  sin  consists  in  voluntary  action.  Thus 
Original  Sin,  both  imputed  and  inherent,  which 
some  good  men  have  been  weak  enough  to  believe 
in,  these  divines  have  banished  from  the  universe 
in  a  moment,  by  the  magic  power  of  a  definition  ! 
But  why  did  they  not  proceed  a  little  further,  and 


78 


define  “  actual  sin,”  also,  out  of  the  universe  T 
They  have,  by  their  definition,  already  reduced  it 
to  comparatively  small  limits,  and  why  did  they 
not  annihilate  it  altogether?  “All  sin,  say  they, 
consists  in  the  known  transgression  of  law.” — 
Then,  there  is  nothing  like  that  amount  of  sin  in 
the  world,  that  some  jealous ,  suspicious ,  iniquity  - 
hunting  persons  would  have  us  believe.  Let  the 
blinded  Pagan  worship  the  sun,  moon  and  stars ; 
let  him  bow  down  to  stocks  and  stones  ;  let  him 
sacrifice  his  own  children  to  devils  ;  yea,  let  him 
immolate  himself  upon  the  altar,  which  he  has 
erected  to  a  false  god,  he  commits  no  sin  in  all 
this,  for  he  does  not  knowingly  transgress  the  law 
of  his  Creator  !  According  to  this  definition, 
Paul  committed  no  sin  in  persecuting  the  church, 
because  he  did  it  ignorantly ,  in  unbelief,  and  actu¬ 
ally  thought,  he  was  doing  God  service  !  Accord¬ 
ing  to  this  definition,  none  of  the  thoughts ,  words 
or  deeds  of  mankind  are  sinful,  except  those,  which 
at  the  time  are  known  to  be  transgressions  of  the 
law  of  God!  If  “all  sin  consists  in  the  known 
transgression  of  law,”  then,  only  bring  mankind 
into  a  state  of  profound  ignorance  concerning  the 
law,  and  you  most  effectually  put  it  out  of  their 
power  to  commit  sin  !  Accordingly,  Satan,  “the 
god  of  this  world,”  must  be  of  very  great  benefit 


79 


\ 


to  the  children  of  men,  since  we  are  assured,  that 
he  blinds  the  minds  of  them  that  believe  not,  the 
very  thing  they  need  in  order  to  keep  them  from 
sinning  !  Yes,  the  more  of  ignorance,  the  more  of 
holiness ! 

But  how  does  this  definition  accord  with  the 
scriptures  ?  Our  Saviour  says,  “If  the  blind  lead 
the  blind,  both  shall  fall  into  the  ditch — blind¬ 
ness,  then,  is  no  preservative  against  sin  and  de¬ 
struction.  Again  he  prays  for  his  murderers, 
“  Father  forgive  them  for  they  knoiv  not  what 
they  do  — he  does  not  accuse  them  of  known 
trangression  of  law,  but  nevertheless  he  regards 
them  as  guilty,  for  he  prays  that  they  might  be 
forgiven.  David  confesses  and  prays — “  Who  can 
understand  his  errors !  Cleanse  thou  me  from 
secret  faults. ”  Job  prays — “Make  me  to  know 

my  transgression  and  my  sin.”  In  a  word,  we 
find,  that,  under  the  law,  sin-offerings  were 
expressly  appointed  by  Jehovah,  in  the  case  of 
persons,  who  might  sin  through  ignorance  against 
any  of  the  commandments  of  the  Lord ,  and  thus 
become  guilty.  (Lev.  iv.  2,  13,  22,  27.)  With 
out  adducing  any  other  proof,  we  will  leave  the  in¬ 
telligent  reader  to  judge  for  himself,  how  far  these 
divines  have  wandered  from  the  rule  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  when  they  assert,  that  “all  sin  con- 


80 


sists  in  the  known  transgression  of  law.”  And 
indeed  when  we  consider  that  there  are  “  desires 
of  the  flesh  and  of  the  mind,”  which  are  sinful, 
according  to  the  word  of  God,  and  which,  never¬ 
theless,  do  not  proceed  from  the  will ,  nor  can  be 
identified  with  voluntary  action ,  it  is  evident  that 
their  definition,  even  in  its  abriged  form,  is  un- 
scriptural  and  to  be  rejected.  There  may  be  sin 
where  there  is  no  voluntary  action.  “  The  thought 
of  foolishness  is  sin.”  “To  will  is  present  with 
me,  but  how  to  perform  that  which  is  good  I  find 
not.  For  the  good  that  I  would  I  do  not,  but  the 
evil  which  I  ivould  not ,  that  I  do .”  “  Let  us  cleanse 

ourselves  from  all  filthiness  of  the  flesh  and  of  the 
spirit.”  “  They  that  are  Christ’s  have  crucified 
the  flesh,  ivith  the  affections  and  lusts.”  Such 
scriptures,  if  we  mistake  not,  are  very  far  from 
making  “  all  sin  consist  in  voluntary  action.” 

In  attempting  to  show,  that  the  Apostle  is 
speaking  exclusively  of  actual  sin,  these  divines 
assert,  that  when  he  says  “all  have  sinned,”  the 
word  (^jfxaprov)  which  he  uses  “  denotes  actual 
'personal  sin  and  that  only.”  But  from  what  has 
been  said  respecting  their  definition  of  sin,  it  will 
be  seen,  how  little  they  are  entitled  to  belief  in 
making  this  assertion.  Do  they  not  know,  that 
the  word  litterally  signifies  “  to  miss  the  mark  V* 


81 


But  the  arrow  misses  the  mark,  not  only  when  it 
passes  over  it,  but  also  when  it  falls  short  of  it, 
or  when  it  passes  on  either  side  of  it.  The  law  is 
the  mark ,  and  sin  is  the  missing  of  it,  not  only 
where  there  is  a  transgression  of  it,  whether 
known  or  unknown ,  but  even  where  there  is  the 
least  want  of  conformity  to  it.  This  corresponds 
with  the  scripture  defnition  of  sin.  “  Sin  is  a 
transgression  of  the  law.”  (1.  John  iii.  4.)  The 
merest  novice,  in  the  Greek,  knows,  that  the  words 
a  transgression  of  the  law ,  form  but  an  imperfect 
translation  of  the  single  term,*  which  the  Apostle 
uses.  There  is  no  single  word  in  our  language, 
that  fully  conveys  the  idea  intended  by  it.  Per¬ 
haps  the  term  illegality  comes  as  near  to  it  as 
any  other.  It  expresses  in  fact  any  deviation  from 
the  law ,  whether  by  omission  or  commission ,  by  act 
or  by  defect — it  denotes  non-conformity  to  the  law — 
it  denotes  the  want  or  absence  of  any  thing  which 
the  law  requires.  Accordingly,  if  prayer  be  want¬ 
ing ,  it  is  sin  ;  if  charity  be  wanting ,  it  is  sin  ;  if 
holiness  be  wanting ,  it  is  sin  ;  if  righteousness  be 
wanting ,  it  is  sin,  for  all  unrighteousness f  is  sin ; 
if  love  to  Christ  be  wanting ,  it  is  sin,  for  “  if  any 
man  love  not  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  let  him  be 

*  dvofioc.  t  d-Sixicc,  want  of  righteousness. 


82 


Anathema  Maranatha  in  a  word,  if  there  be  any 
thing  wanting  which  the  law  requires ,  it  is  sin. 

From  these  considerations,  we  cannot,  possibly 
believe,  that  the  Apostle  is  speaking  of  sin  in  such 
a  restricted  sense  as  would  correspond  with  the 
definition  given  of  it  by  these  divines.  He  is 
speaking  of  sin  in  the  broadest  acceptation  of  the 
term.  And  whether  he  includes  “  the  imputed  sin 
of  Adam,”  depends  upon  the  fact  of  its  existence. 
The  design  of  the  present  Treatise  is  to  prove  this 
fact.  Hence,  at  present,  we  would  only  remark, 
that  when  the  Apostle  says,  u  by  the  disobedience 
of  one  many  were  made  sinners,”  we  have,  at 
least,  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  reality  of  im¬ 
puted  sin  :  For  he  does  not  say,  that  by  the  diso¬ 
bedience  of  one,  many  made  themselves  sinners , 
but,  were  made ,  constituted ,  or  set  doom  as  sinners , 
by  a  sentence  of  Jehovah,  the  righteous  Judge  of 
all ;  which  could  only  be,  as  we  apprehend,  by 
•  his  imputing  to  them ,  or  judicially  charging  to 
their  account  the  offense  of  their  federal  repre¬ 
sentative  Adam. 

The  foregoing  strictures,  without  adding  any 
more,  will,  we  trust,  be  considered  sufficient  to 
show  the  reader,  that  the  views  expressed  in 
the  Spectator,  on  the  passage  of  scripture  re¬ 
ferred  to,  are  untenable  and  exceedingly  erroneous, 


83 


and  that  they  by  no  means  affect  the  correctness 
of  the  exposition,  which  we  have  given  of  that 
plain,  but  much  perverted  portion  of  scripture. 


84 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ADAM  THE  FEDERAL  REPRESENTATIVE  OF 
HIS  POSTERITY. 

As  the  exposition,  which  we  have  given  of  the 
scope  and  argument  of  the  Apostle  in  Rom.  v.  1£ 
— 19,  and  which  we  have  defended  against  the  in¬ 
terpretation  of  the  same  passage  by  the  New- 
Haven  School,  was  only  intended  to  lay  a  founda¬ 
tion  for  some  further  remarks  on  the  subject  of 
“the  imputation  of  Adam’s  first  sin  to  his  pos¬ 
terity,”  we  will  now  proceed  to  the  execution  of 
that  intention.  And  surely  when  we  contemplate 
the  many  false  and  dangerous  sentiments  that  are 
now  so  universally  entertained  respecting  this  im¬ 
portant  subject,  it  becomes  those,  who  would  sup¬ 
port  the  character  of  witnesses  for  the  truth ,  to 
maintain  an  intelligent  adherence  to  this  part  of 
the  Church’s  Testimony,  and  boldly  to  stand  forth 
in  its  defence. 

The  first  step,  which  we  will  now  take  upon  the 
subject,  shall  be  to  prove,  that  Adam  by  a  federal 
arrangement  was  constituted  the  representative  of 
the  whole  human  race.  If  this  position  cannot  be 
proved,  the  doctrine,  respecting  the  imputation  of 
Adam’s  sin  to  his  posterity,  can  never  be  main¬ 
tained.  But  if,  on  the  contrary,  this  position  be 


85 


susceptible  of  proof,  then  the  doctrine  in  question 
follows,  in  a  measure,  as  a  matter  of  course. 

There  are,  here,  two  topics  for  discussion.  The 
reality  of  a  federal  transaction  with  Adam  ;  and 
the  representative  character  under  which  he 
appeared  and  acted  in  that  transaction. 

Sec.  1. — Of  the  Reality  of  a  Federal  Transaction 

with  Adam. 

That  Adam,  as  soon  as  created,  was  placed  un¬ 
der  a  law,  can  scarcely  be  denied.  He  was  made 
“in  the  image  of  God;”  but  as  one  feature  in 
that  image  was  holiness,  (Eph.  iv.  24.)  and  as 
holiness  is  conformity  to  a  moral  law,  it  follows, 
that  he  was  created  under  a  law,  which  was  the 
rule  and  measure  of  his  holiness.  He  could  not 
have  been  called  upright  or  holy,  had  there  not 
been  a  moral  law  written  in  his  heart,  in  his  very 
creation,  with  the  requirements  of  which  he  pos¬ 
sessed  a  perfect  conformity.  As  soon,  therefore, 
as  he  found  himself  a  living  creature,  he  found 
himself  “  under  law  to  God.”  And,  moreover, 
this  law,  under  which  he  was  created,  possessed 
the  force  of  a  covenant-law ;  that  is,  it  impliedly 
promised  the  bestowment  of  good,  in  case  of  con¬ 
tinued  obedience,  and  threatened  evil,  in  case  of 
disobedience.  None  can  deny,  that  the  moral  law. 


86 


as  originally  given  to  man,  was  sanctioned  with 
an  implied  penalty,  otherwise  it  had  been  unworthy 
of  the  name  of  a  law.  And  on  the  other  hand, 
that  it  contained  an  implied  promise  is  plain  from 
some  declarations  of  the  Apostle  Paul.  Speaking 
of  this  same  moral  law,  he  declares,  that  “the 
commandment  was  ordained  to  life,”  (Rom.  vii. 
10.)  and  again  “what  the  law  could  not  do,  in  that 
it  was  weak  through  the  flesh,  God  sending  his 
own  son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin 
condemned  sin  the  flesh.”  (Rom.  viii.  3.)  Here 
he  intimates,  that  there  was  something,  which  the 
law  could  once  accomplish,  before  it  became 
“  weak  through  the  flesh,”  or  before  man  became 
so  weak  through  sin,  that  he  could  no  longer  obey 
it :  And  what  else  was  that,  than  the  procure¬ 
ment  of  eternal  life,  the  very  thing  which  em¬ 
braced  the  design  of  the  mission  of  God’s  Son  into 
the  world?  And  our  Saviour  undoubtedly  refer¬ 
red  to  the  promise  of  life  inherent  in  the  law,  as 
originally  given  to  man,  when  he  replied  to  a  cer¬ 
tain  young  legalist,  “  If  thou  wilt  enter  into  life 
keep  the  commandments.”  “  Do  this  and  live,” 
is  the  natural  dictate  of  the  divine  law.  And  in¬ 
deed  no  law  is  deserving  of  the  name,  if  it  do  not 
intrinsically  possess  the  formal  nature  of  a  cove¬ 
nant.  Even  human  laws  do  so ;  for,  while  they 


87 


threaten  punishment  against  their  violation,  they 
also  impliedly  promise  governmental  security  and 
protection  to  their  observance. 

But  when  we  speak  of  God’s  having  made  a 
covenant  with  Adam,  we  mean  something  more 
than  this  natural  covenanting ,  to  which  we  have 
alluded.  We  find,  that  shortly  after  Adam’s  crea¬ 
tion,  there  was  a  positive  covenanting  transacted 
between  God  and  him.  “  And  the  Lord  God  com¬ 
manded  the  man,  saying,  Of  every  tree  of  the 
garden  thou  mayest  freely  eat ;  but  of  the  tree  of 
the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  thou  shaltnot  eat 
of  it ;  for  in  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou 
shalt  surely  die.”  (Gen.  ii.  16,  17.)  Now,  that 
this  was  really  a  federal  regulation  between  God 
and  Adam,  the  transaction  itself  bears  ample  proof. 
Here, — 

1.  There  are  two  distinct  parties  mentioned — 
the  Lord  God,  the  Supreme  Sovereign  and  Law¬ 
giver  of  the  Universe,  and  the  man,  the  subordi¬ 
nate  lord  of  the  lower  creation.  And  the  great 

o 

inequality  of  the  parties  is  no  valid  objection 
against  their  mutually  covenanting  together,  when 
it  is  recollected,  that  the  whole  matter  originated 
with,  and  was  proposed  by  the  superior  party,  and 
that  too,  in  the  way  of  manifesting  sovereign  con¬ 
descension  and  goodness  to  the  inferior-  party. 


% 


88 


There  is  nothing  to  prevent  a  master  from  entering 
into  a  federal  compact  with  a  servant. 

2.  There  is  a  law  given.  “The  Lord  God 
commanded  the  man.”  And  this  was  a  positive 
law ,  proceeding,  not  from  the  nature,  but  from  the 
sovereign  will  of  God  ;  as  it  related  to  a  matter, 
which  in  its  own  nature,  was  indifferent,  viz  :  the 
eating  of  a  certain  fruit.  Now  if  the  natural  law, 
under  which  man  was  created,  contained  in  itself 
the  force  of  a  covenant,  much  more  may  this  posi¬ 
tive  law  be  regarded  as  a  covenant-law. 

3.  There  is  a  condition  specified.  The  precise 
object,  about  which  the  regulation  was  made,  was 
“  the  fruit  of  the  trees  of  the  garden.”  And,  with 
one  solitary  exception,  a  free  use  of  the  fruit  of 
all  the  trees  growing  in  Eden  was  granted  to  the 
man.  “  Of  every  tree  of  the  garden  thou  mayest 
freely  eat ;  but  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of 
good  and  evil  thou  shaft  not  eat  of  it,”  And  let 
it  not  be  said,  that  this  matter  was  too  trifling  to 
constitute  an  object  worthy  of  a  solemn  covenant. 
Because  nothing  could  have  been  a  more  satisfac¬ 
tory  test  of  the  man’s  obedience  to  the  will  of  his 
Creator  :  which  was  the  great  object  propounded 
by  this  transaction.  Obedience  to  this  one  precept 
would  have  secured  obedience  to  the  whole  moral 
law  ;  and  disobedience  to  it  was  disobedience  to 


89 


the  whole  moral  law.  u  Whosoever  offendeth  in 
one  point  is  guilty  of  all.”  Hence  the  immediate 
condition,  proposed  to  Adam,  was  not  so  much 
doing ,  as  refraining  from  doing .  ‘-But  of  the 
tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  thou  shalt 
not  eat  of  it.”  What  condition  could  be  more 
easy,  considering  the  great  object  to  be  accom 
plished  by  it  7 

4.  There  is  a  penalty  annexed,  as  a  solemn 
sanction  of  the  transaction.  uIn  the  day  thou 
eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die.”  The  evil 
threatened  to  be  inflicted,  in  case  of  disobedience, 
was  death  ;  and  not  only  a  present  but  also  a 
future  death:  u  dying  thou  shalt  die” — one  con¬ 
tinued  death,  from  the  moment  of  transgressing 
to  all  eternity — involving  a  painful  separation,  not 
merely  of  the  union  between  soul  and  body,  but 
what  is  infinitely  more  terrible,  a  spiritual  and 
eternal  separation  between  the  covenant-breaker 
and  his  God,  accompanied  with  loss,  shame,  suf¬ 
fering  and  everlasting  infamy. 

5.  There  is  a  promise  implied.  Since  death 
was  expressly  threatened  as  the  penalty  of  diso¬ 
bedience,  a  promise,  including  the  very  opposite  of 
death,  must  be  inferred  as  having  been  made  to  a 
course  of  obedience.  And  as  the  penalty  em¬ 
braced  the  greatest  amount  of  evil,  the  promise 

3* 


90 


may  be  considered  as  embracing  the  greatest 
amount  of  good,  viz  :  life — natural,  spiritual  and 
eternal.  And, 

6.  There  is  the  consent  of  Adam  to  the  terms 
proposed.  By  revelation  he  was  made  acquainted 
with  the  sovereign  will  of  the  Lord  God,  in  this 
matter ;  and  being  a  trtily  intelligent  being,  he 
perfectly  understood  the  nature  of  the  whole  trans¬ 
action.  And  accordingly  he  communicated  a 
knowledge  of  the  eventful  affair  to  the  woman, 
whom  God  shortly  afterwards  gave  to  be  with 
him,  and  who  also  considered  herself  bound  by  the 
same  deed*  For,  in  the  next  Chapter  she  is  re¬ 
presented  as  saying  to  the  Serpent,  “we  may 
eat  of  the  fruit  of  the  trees  of  the  garden ;  but 
of  the  fruit  of  the  tree,  which  is  in  the 
midst  of  the  garden,  God  hath  said,  ye  shall  not 
eat  of  it,  neither  shall  ye  touch  it,  lest  ye  die.” 
Now  this  is  enough  to  show,  that  there  was  actu¬ 
ally  a  consent,  on  the  part  of  man,  to  the  proposed 
stipulation.  For,  being  in  possession  of  the 
knowledge  of  his  Creator’s  will,  as  an  upright  and 
holy  creature,  he  could  not  do  otherwise,  than  yield 
a  free,  immediate  and  cordial  consent  to  it.  In¬ 
deed  in  his  state  of  innocence,  and  while  eno-acred 
in  active  obedience,  his  Creator’s  will  was  his 
will.  And  hence,  when  called  to  account  for  his 


91 


disobedience,  he  does  not  plead  that  he  had  never 
consented  to  what  had  been  proposed  :  on  the  con¬ 
trary,  the  apology  which  he  offers  plainly  indi¬ 
cates,  that  he  had  given  his  consent.  “Hast  thou 
eaten  of  the  tree,”  says  God,  “  whereof  I  com¬ 
manded  thee,  that  thou  shouldst  not  eat And 
the  man  said,  “  The  woman,  whom  thou  gavest 
to  be  with  me,  she  gave  me  of  the  tree3  and  I  did 
eat.”  Here  he  acknowledges  guilt,  but  endeavors 
to  palliate  it,  by  laying  the  blame  upon  her,  who 
was  first  in  the  transgression. 

Now,  from  the  foregoing  considerations,  it  can¬ 
not,  with  any  color  of  reason,  be  denied,  that  God 
did  actually  enter  into  a  covenant  with  Adam. 
But  the  scriptures  furnish  us  with  many  additional 
proofs  upon  the  subject.  Two  only  shall  be  no¬ 
ticed. 

1.  It  is  written  in  Hosea,  (chap.  vi.  7.)  “But 
they  like  men  have  transgressed  the  covenant.” 
With  more  propriety,  these  words  may  be  trans¬ 
lated,  “But  they  like  Adam  have  transgressed 
the  covenant.”  The  same  phraseology  occurs  in 
Job,  (chap.  xxxi.  33.)  “  If  I  have  covered  my 

transgression  as  Adam.”  Here  the  first  man, 
Adam  is  unquestionably  intended.  In  the  eighty- 
second  Psalm,  we  meet  with  the  same  expression 
•—“But,  ye  shall  die  like  men” — which  clause 


92 


would  have  been  more  forcibly  expressed,  and 
more  in  accordance  with  the  scope  of  the  Psalmist, 
had  our  Translators  rendered  it — “But  ye  shall 
die  like  Adam.”  But  admitting,  that  the  passage 
in  Hosea  is  correctly  translated,  who  would  ever 
think  of  excluding  Adam  from  “the  men”  to 
whom  the  prophet  compares  covenant-breaking 
Israel  ?  And  if  he  be  included,  then  what  cove¬ 
nant  was  he  ever  chargeable  with  transgressing, 
other  than  the  covenant  of  which  we  are  speaking  I 
£.  In  Hebrews,  (chap.  xii.  £4,)  we  read  of 
“Jesus,  the  Mediator  of  the  new  covenant.”  This 
language  suggests,  that  there  was  an  “  old  cove¬ 
nant,”  of  which  Jesus  was  not  the  Mediator.  And 
what  else  could  that  covenant  have  been,  than  the 
covenant  of  works,  which  had  been  made  with 
Adam  I  For,  granting,  that  there  is  in  these 
words  a  reference  to  the  new,  in  opposition  to  the 
old  testament  dispensation  of  the  covenant  of 
Grace  ;  still  as  Jesus  is  the  mediator  of  that  cove¬ 
nant,  under  both  dispensations  of  it,  and  as  there 
is  evidently  an  allusion,  here  to  a  covenant  of 
which  he  was  not  the  Mediator,  we  must  conclude 
that  the  covenant  made  with  Adam  is  intended. 
The  Covenant  of  Grace,  in  respect  of  origin,  is 
an  “  everlasting  covenant,”  but  in  respect  of  reve¬ 
lation  and  execution,  it  succeeds  the  Covenant  of 


93 


Works ;  and  in  comparison  with  which  it  receives 
the  name  of  the  New  Covenant. 

Thus,  then,  we  have  shown,  that  the  Lord  God 
made  a  covenant  with  Adam  :  and  if  any  further 
evidence  of  this  be  required,  it  may  be  found  in 
those  proofs,  which  shall  now  be  offered  in  the 
discussion  of  the  other  topic  proposed,  viz  :  that 
Adam,  in  this  covenant,  appeared  and  acted  in 
the  relation  of  a  representative  to  all  his  posterity. 

Sec.  2. — Of  the  Representative  Character  of 

Adam. 

Adam,  being  the  first  man  God  created,  was  the 
“natural  head”  of  all  his  descendants;  or  to  vary 
the  expression,  the  “natural  root,”  from  which 
they  all  sprung.  But  this  is  not  what  we  mean  by 
his  being  constituted  the  representative  of  his 
offspring.  This  circumstance,  indeed,  laid  a  pro  - 
per  foundation,  and  proved  his  fitness  for  sustain¬ 
ing  a  representative  character,  but  was  something 
entirely  distinct  from  that  character.  Had  Adam, 
in  the  covenant,  been  regarded  merely  as  a  natural 
head,  we  are  free  to  acknowledge,  that  his  de¬ 
scendants  could  not,  according  to  our  ideas  of  jus¬ 
tice,  have  been  charged  with  the  guilt  of  his  sin¬ 
ful  conduct,  however  they  might  have  suffered 
temporal  evils  in  consequence  of  his  conduct,  a," 


94 


children,  though  not  chargeable  with  the  sins  of 
their  parents,  frequently  become  sufferers  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  their  immoral  conduct.  But  when  we 
speak  of  Adam  as  a  representative,  we  mean,  that 
he  appeared  and  acted  in  the  name  of  his  posterity, 
so  that  in  law,  his  acts  became  virtually  their  acts, 
they,  as  well  as  he,  being  held  responsible  for 
them.  This  remark,  therefore,  will  shew  the 
reader  the  bearing,  that  the  fact  of  Adam’s  repre- 
senative  character  has  upon  the  doctrine  of  Origi¬ 
nal  Sin. 

Now,  that  Adam  acted  as  the  federal  head  and 
representative  of  his  posterity,  may  be  presumed 
from  the  fact  of  his  being  placed  under  a  positive 
Jaw.  The  natural  law,  under  which  Adam  was 
created,  was,  as  we  have  seen,  a  covenant-law, 
and  was  sufficient  to  have  secured  him  eternal  life, 
in  virtue  of  the  implied  promise  of  Jehovah. 
Why,  then,  was  he  put  under  a  positive  law  re¬ 
lating  to  “  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge 
of  good  and  evil'?”  Was  it,  that  his  obedience 
might  be  more  easy  ?  This  could  not  affect  the 
facility  of  his  obedience  :  For,  being  upright  and 
holy  in  his  nature,  he  could  have  obeyed  God’s 
law  in  every  respect  with  more  ease  than  he  could 
have  violated  it.  Indeed,  no  act  of  disobedience 
could  have  been  committed  by  him,  without  offer- 


ing  resistance  to  the  holy  propensities  of  his  na¬ 
ture.  And  admitting,  what  was  probably  the  case, 
that  the  moral  law  could  only  be  broken  through  this 
positive  law,  still  we  cannot  see,  how  this  could 
be  any  advantage  to  a  perfectly  holy  creature,  to 
whom  obedience  was  more  congenial  than  diso¬ 
bedience.  The  true  reason,  therefore,  of  this  new 
arrangement  seems  to  have  been,  that  Adam  mio-ht 
sustain  a  representative  character,  a  character 
which  he  did  not  sustain  while  existing  simply  un¬ 
der  the  original  law  given  him  in  his  creation  ; 
under  which  law  he  was  only  personally  consider¬ 
ed,  acting  for  himself  alone.  And  had  no  other 
arrangement  been  effected  in  relation  to  him,  all 
his  children  would  have  been  immediately  and  per¬ 
sonally  placed  under  the  same  law  as  a  covenant- 
law,  the  moment  they  were  brought  into  exis¬ 
tence,  and  would  have  stood  or  fallen,  according 
to  their  respective  personal  conduct.  Moreover, 
when  we  consider,  that  Adam,  when  created,  could 
have  had  no  consciousness  of  standing  as  a  repre¬ 
sentative  of  others,  we  see  a  very  glorious  pro¬ 
priety  in  God’s  entering  into  a  positive  arrange¬ 
ment  with  him  relative  to  that  matter.  And  that 
lie  might  be  constituted  the  representative,  or 
moral  head  of  his  posterity,  as  he  was  created 
their  natural  head,  seems  obviously  to  have  been 


96 


the  principal  design  of  that  positive  establishment , 
relative  to  u  the  tree  in  the  midst  of  the  o-arden  ” 

©  7 

and  which  is  commonly  called  the  covenant  of 
works.  But  we  do  not  rest  the  argument  upon 
mere  presumptive  proof.  The  following  considera¬ 
tions,  if  duly  weighed,  must  by  every  unbiassed 
mind,  be  regarded  as  proofs  positive  upon  this  in¬ 
teresting  subject. 

Sec.  3. — The  Representative  Character  of  Adam 
Proved  from  Romans ,  v.  12. 

The  word  of  God  represents  all  mankind  as 
having  sinned  in  Adam.  (Rom.  v.  12.)  The  last 
clause  of  this  verse,  as  we  have  already  seen,  may 
with  the  utmost  propriety,  be  translated,  in  whom 
ale  have  sinned.  According,  however,  to  the 
common  translation,  the  same  idea  is  implied,  as 
the  scope  of  the  Apostle  abundantly  shows.  And, 
indeed,  there  is  nothing  stronger  in  the  expres¬ 
sion,  u  in  whom,  (Adam,)  all  have  sinned,”  than 
in  the  expression,  used  in  the  19th  verse,  “by  one 
man’s  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners.” 
If  many  were  made  or  constituted  sinners  by  the 
disobedience  of  Adam,  does  it  not  follow,  that  they 
sinned  in  him?  And  it  is  impossible  to  conceive, 
how  mankind,  being  as  yet  unborn,  could  have  sin¬ 
ned  in  him ,  or  been  constituted  sinners  by  his  diso~ 


97 


bedience ,  had  he  not  sustained  the  character  of  their 
representative  and  acted  for  them.  An  attempt, 
however,  is  made  to  evade  this  argument.  And 
how?  Simply  by  denying,  that  the  Apostle  in¬ 
tends  all  mankind ,  when  he  asserts,  that  “  death 
passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned.”  It 
is  said,  adults  only  are  intended  ;  and  the  reason 
why  they  die,  is  because  they  sin  actually  !  But 
the  word,  which  the  Apostle  uses,  denotes  human 
beings  without  any  respect  of  age  or  sex.  And  if 
all  human  beings  are  not  intended,  the  Apostle’s 
declaration  sinks  into  tameness,  to  say  nothing 
worse.  Wherefore,  as  by  one  man  sin  entered 

INTO  THE  WORLD,  AND  DEATH  BY  SIN,  EVEN  SO 
DEATH  PASSED  UPON  ALL  ADULTS,  FOR  THAT  ALL 

adults  have  sinned  actually  !  What  a  mighty 
Apostolical  conclusion  !  But  why  lay  it  down  as 
a  basis ,  that  sin  and  death  entered  into  the  world 
by  one  man,  if  he  only  intended  to  build  upon  it 
the  fact,  that  actual  sinners  die?  Could  not  tlieir 
death  be  accounted  for  without  referring  to  the 

O 

sin  of  Adam  ?  And  why  are  infants  excluded  from 
the  Apostle’s  ‘‘all  men”  that  die?  Do  not  they 
die  ?  Then,  why  not  let  the  Apostle  account  for 
their  death,  as  well  as  for  that  of  adults  ?  He  does 
account  for  their  death,  for  the  death  of  all,  as  the 
context  abundantly  proves,  and  that  by  declaring, 

9 


98 


that  they  “all  have  sinned.”  And  since  a  very 
large  portion  of  human  beings  that  die,  are  in¬ 
capable  of  actual  sinning,  they  must  have  sinned 
“in  Adam;”  which  could  only  have  been,  by  vir¬ 
tue  of  his  representation  of  them  in  the  Covenant 
of  Works. 

Sec.  4. — The  Same  Proved  from  1.  Cor.  xv.  22. 

Inspiration  declares,  that  “  In  Adam  all  die/’ 
(1.  Cor.  xv.  22.)  Now,  even  admitting,  that  it  is 
a  temporal  dying  only,  that  is  here  spoken  of,  this 
is  sufficient  to  answer  our  purpose.  For  in  what 
sense  can  all  men  be  said  to  “  die  in  Adam  in  a 
person,  who  lived  and  died  before  they  were  called 
into  existence,  unless  that  he  represented  them  at 
the  time,  when  death  was  first  incurred  by  trans¬ 
gression?  Nor  can  this  conclusion  be  evaded,  by 
saying,  that  the  Apostle  only  means,  that  as  Adam 
became  mortal  by  transgression,  so  he  propagated 
a  mortal  nature  to  all  his  offspring.  Because  the 
Apostle  is  not  speaking  of  Adam  as  a  natural , 
but  as  a  moral  head.  He  ascribes  to  him  the  same 
kind  of  headship,  that  he  does  to  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  When  he  assures  us  in  the  same  place, 
in  regard  to  the  resurrection  of  the  just,  that 
“they  shall  all  be  made  alive  in  Christ,”  most, 
certainly,  he  is  not  to  be  understood  as  represent- 


mg  the  Saviour  to  be  their  natural,  but  their  moral 
head.  Believers  “  shall  all  be  made  alive  in 
Christ ;  that  is,  in  virtue  of  their  union  to  him, 
and  on  the  ground  of  some  meritorious  act  per¬ 
formed  by  him,  as  their  moral  Head  or  Represen¬ 
tative.  And  this,  we  are  assured,  bears  the  most 
exact  and  striking  similarity  to  the  undeniable 
fact,  that  “in  Adam  all  die,”  in  virtue  of  their 
union  to  him,  and  on  the  ground  of  some  sinful 
act  performed  by  him,  as  their  representative. 
The  nature  of  the  headship  in  both  cases  is  the 
same ;  and  if  viewed  otherwise,  the  aptness  of  the 
Apostle’s  comparison  ceases  to  be  obvious.  If 
then  Adam  propagated  a  mortal  nature  to  all  his 
offspring,  this,  we  contend,  arose  from  the  fact  of 
his  having  represented  them  in  that  covenant, 
whose  threatening  was  death — “In  the  day,  thou 
eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die  or  as  Eve 
expresses  it,  “  Ye  shall  not  eat  of  it,  neither  shall 
ye  touch  it,  lest  ye  die.”  It  must  be  granted, 
that  if  Adam,  prior  to  the  fall,  possessed  immor¬ 
tality  of  body,  as  well  as  of  soul,  that  immortality 
was  not  absolute  but  conditional.  Its  continuance 
depended  on  his  continued  obedience.  Disobe¬ 
dience  to  the  will  of  his  Creator  would  render  him 
mortal;  in  that  case,  he  would  “surely  die.” 
Disobey  he  did ;  and  accordingly  he  forfeited  his 


100 


immortality  and  became  deservedly  mortal.  And 
hence,  his  offspring  are  also  mortal  in  the  same 
sense.  Their  mortality  does  not  necessarily  take 
place  from  the  fact,  that  they  are  the  descendants 
of  a  mortal.  It  is  not  absolute.  Enoch  and  Elijah 
were  translated.  The  last  generation  of  Adam 
will  not  properly  die.  “We  shall  not  all  sleep.’’ 
When,  therefore  we  are  told,  that  “in  Adam  all 
die,”  the  meaning  is  not,  that  all  do  absolutely  and 
necessarily  die,  but,  that  “  in  him”  all  became  ob¬ 
noxious  to  death,  or  deserving  of  death.  And 
surely  this  involves  his  representative  character. 
For,  death,  is  in  its  own  nature,  a  punishment  ; 
and  a  punishment  presupposes  guilt — hence,  if 
“  all  die  in  Adam,”  it  is  because  they  are  regarded 
as  having  incurred  death  “  in  him  which  could 
only  be  on  the  ground  of  his  having  acted  as  their 
representative,  when,  by  him,  sin  and  death  enter¬ 
ed  into  the  world.  This  argument  is  conclusive 
with  all  those,  who  believe  with  the  Apostle,  that 
“  death  is  the  wages  of  sin.”* 

Sec.  5. — The  Same  Proved  from  the  Special  No¬ 
tice  which  the  Apostle  takes  of  the  “  One  Offense .” 

That  Adam  was  a  representative  in  the  cove¬ 
nant,  is  evident  from  the  special  notice,  that  is 


*  See  Chap.  iii.  Secs.  6  and  8. 


101 


taken  of  his  “  one  offense.”  This  one  offense  of 
Adam,  the  Apostle  repeats  again  and  again*  in  the 
passage  before  explained.  Now  why  this  particu¬ 
larity  ?  Why  insist  so  much  upon  that  one  of¬ 
fense  ?  Why  not  attribute  the  evils,  of  which 
he  speaks,  to  the  offenses  of  Adam  in  general  ? 
Or,  why  not  rather  attribute  them  to  the  offenses 
of  our  more  immediate  parents  ?  Surely  our  natu¬ 
ral  connection  with  them  is  more  immediate  than 
with  Adam?  The  reason  is  obvious.  When 
Adam  committed  the  “  one  offense,”  to  which  the 
Apostle  alludes,  he  sustained  the  peculiar  charac¬ 
ter  of  a  federal  representative.  But  as  soon  as 
that  offense  was  committed,  he  lost  that  peculiar 
character,  and  went  back  to  the  private  station  which 
he  occupied  under  the  natural  law.  And  hence 
we  have  no  concern  in  any  of  his  other  offenses 
any  more  than  we  have  in  the  offenses  of  Noah, 
or  any  other  individual  in  the  line  of  our  ancestry. 
If  Adam,  then,  was  not  our  representative,  at  the 
time  he  ate  the  forbidden  fruit,  what  can  the  Apos¬ 
tle  possibly  mean,  by  speaking  so  emphatically  of 
that  one  offense ,  and  bringing  all  mankind  under  its 
baleful  influence? 


102 


Sec.  6. — The  same  proved  from  a  Consideration 
of  the  Representative  Character  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Adam  was  a  representative  head,  otherwise  he 
could  not  be  called  “the  figure,”  or  type  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  (Rom.  v.  14.)  But  do  the 
scriptures  attribute  to  Christ  a  representative  or 
federal  headship  I  Unless  this  can  be  shown,  the 
present  argument  falls  to  the  ground.  The  mat¬ 
ter,  however,  is  susceptible  of  the  clearest  proof. 
That  a  covenant  was  formed,  in  eternity,  between 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  relative  to  the  salvation 
of  fallen  and  guilty  man,  is  evident.  For,  Jehovah, 
the  Father,  expressly  declares,^  “I  have  made  a 
covenant  with  my  chosen  ;  I  have  sworn  unto  Da¬ 
vid  my  servant.”  (Ps.  lxxxix.  3.)  Jesus  Christ  is 
here  principally  intended ;  for  he  is  elsewhere  call¬ 
ed  the  Father’s  servant,  and  his  elect,  or  chosen 
one  :  “  Behold,  my  servant,  whom  I  uphold  ;  mine 
elect,  in  whom  my  soul  delighteth.”  (Isa.  xlii.  1.) 
And  he  is  also  called  David:  “They  shall  serve 
the  Lord  their  God,  and  David  their  king,  whom 
I  will  raise  up  unto  them.”  (Jer.  xxx.  9.)  And 
again:  “I  will  set  tip  one  shepherd  over  them, 
and  he  shall  feed  them,  even  my  servant  David,” 
&c.  (Ezek.  xxxiv.  23.)  Indeed  Christ  himself  is 
expressly  called  a  covenant ;  implying  that  both  he 


103 


and  all  the  blessings  of  his  purchase  come  to  be 
enjoyed  by  believers,  in  virtue  of  a  covenant,  of 
which  he  is  the  head.  “I  will  give  thee  for  a  co¬ 
venant  of  the  people,  for  a  light  of  the  Gentiles, 
to  open  blind  eyes,”  fee.  (Isa.  xlii.  6.)  Do  we 
not  also  read  of  “an  everlasting  covenant:”  and 
of  “the  blood  of  the  everlasting  covenant;”  and 
of  “Jesus  the  Mediator  of  the  new  covenant?” 
These  expressions  are  calculated  to  mislead  us,  if 
they  do  not  point  to  a  covenant  of  grace,  estab¬ 
lished,  before  time,  with  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
Besides,  we  have  the  express  terms  of  this  cove¬ 
nant  mentioned  in  the  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah. 
“When  [if]  thou  shalt  make  his  soul  an  offering 
for  sin,  he  shall  see  his  seed,  and  the  pleasure  of 
the  Lord  shall  prosper  in  his  hand.  He  shall  see 
of  the  travail  of  his  soul,  and  shall  be  satisfied. 
Therefore  will  I  divide  him  a  portion  with  the 
great,  [the  great  for  a  portion]  and  he  shall  divide 
the  spoil  with  the  strong,  [the  strong  for  a  spoil] 
because  he  hath  poured  out  his  soul  unto  death,” 
&c.  And  corresponding  to  this,  the  Apostle  Paul, 
when  speaking  of  Christ’s  having  “humbled  him¬ 
self,  and  become  obedient  unto  death,  even  the 
death  of  the  cross,”  adds,  “wherefore  also  God 
hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name, 
that  is  above  every  name.”  This  exaltation  took 


/ 


104 


place  upon  the  performance  of  a  condition,  and  as 
the  result  of  a  promise,  and,  therefore,  incontro- 
vertibly  proves  the  existence  of  a  covenant  between 
Christ  and  his  Father.  And,  indeed,  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  gospel  proves  the  same  thing.  But  it 
is  not  so  much  the  reality  of  this  covenant,  that  we 
are  now  inquiring  after,  as  the  evidence  of  Christ’s 
representative  character  in  this  covenant.  And 
that  he  sustained  this  character,  and  still  sustains 
it,  is  evident :  Because, 

1.  A  certain  number  of  our  fallen  race  is  spoken 
of,  as  having  been  given  to  him,  to  be  redeemed 
and  saved.  “  All  that  the  Father  hath  given  me 
shall  come  unto  me.”  “Thou  hast  given  him 
power  over  all  flesh,  that  he  might  give  eternal 
life  to  as  many  as  thou  hast  given  him.”  “  And 
I  looked,  and  lo,  a  Lamb  stood  on  the  Mount  Zion, 
and  with  him  an  hundred  and  forty  and  four  thou¬ 
sand,  having  his  Father’s  name  written  in  their 
foreheads.  These  were  redeemed  from  among 
men,  being  the  first  fruits  unto  God  and  the 
Lamb.”  “Thou  shalt  call  his  name  Jesus  ;  for  he 
shall  save  his  people  from  their  sins.” 

2.  Christ  speaks  as  acting  in  the  name  and  room 
of  these.  “  I  lay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep.”  “I 
pray  for  them.”  “  For  their  sakes  I  sanctify  my¬ 
self,”  &c.  And  corresponding  to  this,  the  Apostle 


105 


maintains,  that  “  Christ  loved  the  church  and  gave 
himself  for  it ;  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse 
it,”  &c. 

3.  Christ’s  people  are  represented  as  being  his 
seed  and  the  travail  of  his  soul.  “He  shall  see 
his  seed.”  “He  shall  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul 
and  be  satisfied.” 

4.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive,  how  Jesus  Christ, 
“the  holy  one  of  God,”  should  be  made  under  a 
broken  law,  and  have  obedience  and  sufferings  ex¬ 
acted  of  him,  if  he  were  not  really  sustaining  and 
truly  acting  in  the  character  of  a  public  head  and 
representative  of  others. 

5.  He  is  expressly  called  a  surety.  “By  so 
much  was  Jesus  made  a  surety  of  a  better  testa¬ 
ment,”  or  covenant.  A  surety  is  one  who  under¬ 
takes  the  payment  of  another’s  debts.  In  law¬ 
reckoning,  the  surety  and  the  debtor  are  viewed  as 
one  person.  If  the  surety  pay  the  debt,  the  law 
discharges  the  debtor,  the  same  as  if  he  himself 
had  paid  it.  Now  our  blessed  Lord  has  acted  the 
part  of  a  surety  towards  his  people  ;  he  has  paid 
all  the  debts  which  they  owed  to  law  and  justice  ; 
and  hence  they  become  legally  discharged.  From 
this  Christ’s  representative  character  is  easily  in¬ 
ferred. 

6.  We  find  him  called  by  the  same  name  by 


106 


which  his  people  are  denominated.  Thus,  he  is 
called  Israel  :  But  in  what  other  sense,  than  that 
he  is  the  representative  of  the  whole  Israel  of  God  ? 
Hence,  we  have  his  language,  as  originally  appli¬ 
ed  to  his  own  individual  case,  so  interpreted  by  an 
inspired  Apostle  as  to  refer  to  all  the  elect.  Thus 
says  Christ,  “He  is  near  that  justifieth  me, — who 
is  he  that  shall  condemn  me?  (Isa.  1.  8,  9.)  But 
says  the  Apostle,  with  his  eye  on  these  words, 
“  Who  shall  lay  any  thing  to  the  charge  of  God’s 
elect?  It  is  God  that  justifieth.  Who  is  lie  that 
condemneth?”  &tc.  (Rom.  viii.  35,  34.)  And  it 
may  be  here  added,  that  not  only  is  Christ  called 
by  the  name  of  his  church,  but  they  are  also  called 
by  his  name.  “  For  as  the  body  is  one,  and  hath 
many  members,  and  all  the  members  of  that  one 
body,  being  many,  are  one  body  ;  so  also  is  Christ. 
(1  Cor.  xii.  12.)  But  how  can  the  Church  be 
called  Christ ,  unless  he  be  their  representing  head? 
But  not  to  multiply  arguments  on  this  point,  we 
will  only  add, 

7.  That  Christ’s  resurrection  is  plainly  spoken 
of,  as  being  that  of  a  representative.  In  his  resur¬ 
rection  he  appeared  as  “the  first  fruits  of  them 
that  slept.”  (1  Cor.  xv.  20,  23.)  Under  the  law, 
“  the  first  fruits”  were  offered  to  the  Lord  as  are- 
presentation  of  the  whole  fruits  of  the  coming  har- 


107 


vest ;  and  their  consecration  to  the  Lord  was  ac¬ 
cepted  and  regarded  as  a  consecration  of  the  whole 
harvest.  Christ’s  resurrection,  therefore,  was  of 
a  representative  nature,  and  secured  the  actual 
resurrection  of  all  his  followers.  But  if  Christ  re¬ 
presented  his  people-  in  his  resurrection,  he  must 
also  have  represented  them  in  his  death,  nay,  in  the 
whole  of  his  mediatory  undertaking  and  work. 

Having  thus  proved  Christ  to  be  the  federal  re- 
presentive  of  his  chosen  people,  we  can  appreciate 
the  force  of  the  Apostle’s  words,  when  he  asserts, 
that  Adam  was  u  the  figure  of  him  that  was  to 
come.”  All  the  types  of  Christ,  spoken  of  in  scrip¬ 
ture,  manifestly  refer  to  his  character  and  work  as 
Mediator.  Now,  how  could  Adam  have  been  a 
type  of  the  Mediator,  except  by  reason  of  his  sus¬ 
taining  a  representative  character  ?  Adam  is  no 
where  called,  either  a  prophet,  priest  or  king.  He  ' 
is  not  called  a  Mediator,  as  Moses  was ;  he  is  not 
celebrated  for  destroying  the  enemies  of  the  church, 
like  Sampson  ;  he  was  never  in  a  whale’s  belly,  as 
Jonah  was.  How  then  was  he  a  type  of  Christ? 
View  him  as  the  representative  of  all  his  natural 
seed,  as  Christ  is  of  his  spiritual  seed,  and  his  ty¬ 
pical  character  becomes  apparent,  the  phrase  un¬ 
der  consideration  freed  from  an  unmeaning  obscu¬ 
rity,  that  must  otherwise  cover  it,  and  the  Apos- 


108 


tie’s  argument,  in  that  place,  triumphantly  sus¬ 
tained. 

Sec.  7. — The  same  proved  from  the  comparison , 
drawn  in  Scripture ,  between  Adam  and  Christ. 

Adam’s  representative  character  is  proved 
from  the  comparison  which  the  scriptures  draw 
between  him  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This 
comparison  is  very  particularly  stated  in  the  fol¬ 
lowing  words  of  the  Apostle — “  If  through  the  of¬ 
fence  of  one  many  be  dead ;  much  more  the  grace 
of  God,  and  the  gift  by  grace,  which  is  by  one 
man,  Jesus  Christ,  hath  abounded  unto  many.  If 
by  one  man’s  offense  death  reigned  by  one  ;  much 
more  they  which  receive  abundance  of  grace,  and 
of  the  gift  of  righteousness,  shall  reign  in  life,  by 
one,  Jesus  Christ.  Therefore,  as  by  the  offense 
of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condem¬ 
nation  ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the 
free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of 
life.  F or  as  by  one  man’s  disobedience  many  were 
made  sinners ;  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall 
many  be  made  righteous.”  What  a  striking  con¬ 
trast  is  here  drawn  between  the  effects  resulting 
from  the  acts  of  these  two  characters!  These 
surely  must  have  been  public  or  representative  acts  ; 
for  they  involve  the  condition  of  millions.  Here 


1G9 


are  sin,  condemnation  and  death  resulting  from  the 
“  one  offence”  of  the  one  ;  and  righteousness,  jus¬ 
tification  and  life  resulting1  from  the  “  obedience” 
or  “righteousness”  of  the  other!  The  Apostle 
also  introduces  this  same  comparison,  in  writing 
to  the  church  at  Corinth — “  As  in  Adam  all  die, 
even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive.”  (1  Cor. 
xv.  £2.)  And  afterwards,  “  The  first  man  Adam 
was  made  a  living  soul,  the  last  Adam  was  made 
a  quickening  spirit— The  first  man  is  of  the  earth, 
earthly ;  the  second  man  is  the  Lord  from  hea¬ 
ven.”  (Verses  45,  47.)  Now,  if  Adam  did  not 
sustain  a  representative  character,  how  is  the  Apos¬ 
tle,  here,  to  be  understood,  in  calling  Jesus  Christ 
“the  second  man,”  and  “the  last  Adam?”  In 
what  sense  is  Christ  the  second  to  Adam,  unless  it 
be  in  respect  of  his  sustaining  a  representative 
headship?  And  in  what  sense  is  he  the  “last 
Adam,”  unless  it  be  that  he  possesses  some  distin¬ 
guishing  characteristic,  which  gives  him  a  resem¬ 
blance  to  the  “first  Adam,”  and  which  never  will 
be  found  in  any  other  ?  And  what  else  can  this 
characteristic  be,  than  representative  headship? 
Besides,  these  two  personages  are  here  presented 
to  us,  as  each  having  a  numerous  body,  or  class  of 
individuals,  resembling  himself.  “As  is  the 
earthy,  (Adam,)  such  are  they  also  that  are 

10 


110 


earthy  ;  and  as  is  the  heavenly,  (Christ,)  such 
are  they  also  that  are  heavenly.”  (v.  48.)  From 
the  scope  of  the  Apostle,  these  words,  in  their  sig¬ 
nification,  are  certainly  to  be  considered  as  paral¬ 
lel  to,  and  illustrative  of  those  contained  in  v.  ££ — 
“As  in  Adam  all  die  ;  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all 
be  made  alive.”  And  hence,  unless  Adam  and 
Christ  be  viewed  as  representatives  of  others,  it  is 
difficult  to  conceive  the  reason  why  they  should  be 
singled  out,  in  the  manner  that  is  here  done,  and 
the  condition  of  all  mankind  be  inseparably  coupled 
with  them,  either  for  good  or  for  evil.  We  think, 
therefore,  that  the  conclusion  is  unavoidable — 
when  the  comparison,  instituted  in  scripture,  be¬ 
tween  Adam  and  Christ,  is  duly  considered,  and 

m  n 

when  it  is  also  remembered,  that  Christ  is,  as  was 
before  proved,  the  representative  of  the  election  of 
grace — that  Adam  in  the  covenant  of  works  did 
really  sustain  the  character  of  a  representing  head 
to  all  his  natural  offspring. 

Sec.  8. — The  same  proved  from  a  consideration  of 
the  moral  condition  of  infants. 

The  same  truth  is  proved  from  a  consideration 
of  the  moral  condition  of  infants.  The  scriptures 
most  unequivocally  teach,  that  infants  are  sub¬ 
jects  of  law,  and  consequently  possess  a  moral 


Ill 


character.  Their  being  called  children,  identifies 
them  as  human  beings.  Indeed,  they  must  be  hu¬ 
man  beings  from  the  moment  they  possess  human¬ 
ity ,  or  linman  nature ,  in  its  two  great  constituent 
principles  of  body  and  soul.  Now,  to  say,  as  do 
our  modern  Pelagians,  that  these  human  beings  are 
not  subjects  of  law,  or  do  not  possess  a  moral  char¬ 
acter,  is  to  classify  them  with  the  brute  creation, 
and  consequently  to  make  such  of  them  as  die  in 
infancy,  share  the  portion  of  “the  beasts  which 
perish.”  For  certainly,  on  their  principles,  such 
could  not  be  received  into  heaven,  unless  we  ab¬ 
surdly  suppose,  that  there  are  beings  admitted  to 
the  glory  of  the  upper  world,  who  are  not  subjects 
of  law,  and  whose  reception  there  was  not  in  ac¬ 
cordance  with  any  judicial  sentence  founded  on 
law  !  But  that  infants,  from  the  earliest  period  of 
their  existence  as  human  beings,  are  subjects  of 
law,  may  be  inferred  from  what  is  said  respecting 
our  Lord  in  his  incarnation — “  God  sent  forth  his 
Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made  under  the  law.” 
(Gal.  iv.  4.)  No  sooner  was  he  possessed  of  hu¬ 
manity,  than  he  was  under  law  for,  in  his  being 
made  of  a  ivoman,  he  was  made  under  the  law.  It 
is  true,  he  wTas  not  made  under  the  law  for  him¬ 
self,  but  as  the  surety  of  others  ;  nevertheless,  his 
case  obviously  teaches,  that  every  person  posses- 


* 


112 


sing  humanity ,  must  be  under  the  law  ;  and  since 
infants  cannot  be  supposed  to  stand  surety  for 
others,  they  are  made  under  the  law  for  themselves. 

The  rite  of  circumcision,  as  administered  to  in¬ 
fants  under  the  former  economy,  recognized  them 
as  possessing  a  moral  character  :  they  were  to  be 
circumcised  on  the  eighth  day  after  their  birth. 
Now,  had  they  not  been  subjects  of  law,  how  could 
they  have  been  the  proper  subjects  of  circumcis¬ 
ion,  which,  according  to  the  Apostle,  was  a  seal  of 
the  righteousness  of faith?  And  the  ordinance  of 
baptism,  under  the  present  dispensation,  teaches 
the  same  thing :  for  if  infants  are  not  subjects  of 
law,  why  baptize  them  ? 

Besides,  the  scriptures  represent  infants,  as  be¬ 
ing  capable  of  sustaining  an  ecclesiastical  relation. 
The  Abrahamic  covenant  in  particular,  proves  this. 
The  Lord  said  to  Abraham,  “I  will  establish  my 
covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after 
thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  cov¬ 
enant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  thy  seed  after 
thee.”  And  immediately  upon  the  revelation  of 
this  promise,  circumcision  was  appointed  as  “a 
token  of  the  covenant.”  “He  that  is  eight  days 
old,  shall  be  circumcised  among  you,  every  man- 
child  in  your  generations.”  v.  12.  Here,  then, 
we  have  infants  recognized  as  bearing  an  ecclesias- 


1  IB 


tical  relation,  and  as  having  a  claim  to  an  ecclesi  ¬ 
astical  ordinance,  called  “  a  token  of  the  covenant,” 
“  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith.”  And  this 
relation  is  still  retained  by  the  infant  seed  of  be¬ 
lievers.  For  says  Peter,  with  his  eye  upon  the 
forecited  passage,  “the  promise  is  unto  you  and 
to  your  children.”  Acts  ii.  39.  And  Paul  declares 
to  the  Corinthians,  that  “the  unbelieving  husband 
is  sanctified  by  the  believing  wife,  and  the  unbe¬ 
lieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  believing  husband  ; 
else  were  your  children  unclean;  but  now  are 
they  holy.”  1  Cor.  vii.  14.  This  text  proves, 
that  the  matrimonial  union  is  so  far  sanctified  by 
the  faith  of  one  of  the  parties,  that  the  offspring  of 
that  union  sustains  an  ecclesiastical  relation  :  in¬ 
deed,  the  ingenuity  of  man  cannot  give  to  it  any 
other  rational  interpretation.  In  like  manner,  al¬ 
so,  our  saviour  took  up  infants*  in  his  arms  and 
blessed  them,  which  shows  that  he  regarded  them 
as  possessing  a  moral  character ;  and  in  saying, 
“  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God,”  he  declared  that 
they  were  capable  subjects  of  an  ecclesiastical  re¬ 
lation — that  they  were  proper  subjects  of  the  king¬ 
dom  of  grace  here,  and  of  glory  hereafter.  But  if 

<ra  fipSCpV}  sucking  children.  Luke  xviii.  16. 
Mark  x.  16. 


114 


infants  are  capable  of  sustaining  an  ecclesiastical 
relation,  it  inevitably  follows,  that  th'^y  are  subjects 
of  law — that  they  possess  a  moral  character. 

Having  thus  proved  that  infants  aie  subjects  of 
law,  let  us,  for  a  moment,  enquire  after  their  true 
moral  condition.  And  a  little  reflection  most  con¬ 
vince  all,  that,  as  born  into  the  world,  they  are  to 
be  regarded  as  sinners  under  the  curse  of  a  broken 
law.  It  will  not  be  denied,  we  trust,  that  some  of 
the  infant  seed  of  Adam  are  received  into  heaven. 
The  fact  of  their  being  embraced  in  the  promise, 
recognized  as  sustaining  an  ecclesiastical  relation, 
and  made  subjects  of  church-privileges,  most  deci¬ 
dedly  establishes  this.  Besides,  our  Saviour  dis¬ 
tinctly  says,  “  suffer  little  children  to  come  unto 
me,  and  forbid  them  not  ;  for  of  such  is  the  king¬ 
dom  of  God.”  But  in  what  way,  or  through  what 
channel  are  they  received  into  heaven  ?  Unques¬ 
tionably  through  the  channel  of  the  covenant  of 
grace,  and  in  virtue  of  the  merits  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  For  we  have  seen,  that  the  covenant  of 
grace,  of  which  Christ  is  the  surety,  embraces  such 
in  its  promise  ;  and  that  such  have  an  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  relation,  or  constitute  a  part  of  the  church. 
They  are,  therefore,  saved  by  the  merits  of  Christ : 
For  we  read,  that  “  Christ  loved  the  church,  and 
gave  himself  for  it  ;  that  he  might  sanctify  and 


115 


cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water  by  the  Word  ; 
that  he  might  present  it  to  himself  a  glorious 
church,  not  having  spot  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such 
thing ;  but  that  it  should  be  holy,  and  without 
blame  before  him  in  love.”  Eph.  v.  25,  £7.* 

*  The  above  considerations,  it  is  presumed,  sufficiently  show 
how  utterly  groundless  is  the  position,  slyly  advanced  in  the  fol¬ 
lowing  interrogatories : 

“  What  if  those  of  the  human  race  who  die  in  very  early  in¬ 
fancy,  never  truly  and  properly  come  under  the  moral  govern¬ 
ment  of  God  in  this  world  ?  In  respect  to  many  of  our  race,  who 
do  come  under  the  moral  government  of  God  in  the  present  life, 
its  rich  provisions  of  grace  and  mercy,  through  their  perversion, 
only  become  the  occasion  of  augmenting  their  guilt  and  endless 
ruin.  What  then,  if  God,  to  avert  these  evils  from  one  class  of 
the  human  race,  before  they  become  accountable  subjects  of  his 
moral  government  in  this  world,  translates  them  to  another,  that 
they  may  never  partake  in  the  pollution  of  sin,  but  wake  up  there 
in  the  beauty  of  holiness?” — Christian  Spectator ,  vol.  v.,  p.  324. 

Children  were  embraced  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  which 
was  a  revelation  of  the  covenant  of  grace :  children,  both  under 
the  former  and  the  present  economy,  have  sustained  an  ecclesias¬ 
tical  relation;  children,  therefore,  are  “  under  the  moral  govern¬ 
ment  of  God  in  this  world.”  Moreover,  such  of  the  infant  seed 
of  believers,  as  die  in  infancy  and  are  received  into  heaven,  must 
be  indebted  for  their  happiness,  to  the  merits  of  the  Saviour : 
otherwise,  Christ  did  not  give  himself  for  the  whole  church  that 
he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it — a  suggestion  most  palpably  at 
variance  with  the  express  declaration  of  God’s  word.  It  would 
seem,  that  the  divines  of  the  New-Haven  school  are  determined 
to  set  every  thing  in  theology  at  loose  ends.  Hence  their  method 
of  starting  new  theories  in  the  way  of  interrogation,  and  after¬ 
wards  changing  them  from  the  interrogatory  to  the  assertive  form, 


116 


Hence,  since  there  are  infants  that  belong  to 
“  the  church  of  the  first-born,  whose  names  are 
written  in  heaven,”  it  follows,  that  they  have  been 
purchased  by  the  vicarious  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of 
God,  and  consequently  must  be  viewed,  in  respect  of 
their  antecedent  moral  condition,  as  guilty  and  defi¬ 
led  sinners,  yea,  as  being  “by  nature  children  of 
wrath.”  Indeed,  it  is  most  obvious,  that  there  are 
none  received  into  heaven  from  our  world,  save 
such  as  have  been  redeemed  by  the  blood  of  Christ. 

The  hundred  and  forty  and  four  thousand,  whom 
John  saw  standing  with  the  Lamb  on  Mount  Zion, 
were  “redeemed  from  among  men.”  Besides,  if  glo- 

when  they  find  the  community  sufficiently  prepared  to  receive 
them.  This  has  been  the  manner  of  heretics  in  all  ages. — In  stri¬ 
king  out  a  new  way  for  the  reception  of  infants  into  heaven, 
why  did  not  these  very  acute  divines  make  it  broad  enough  for 
the  whole  brute  creation  ?  On  their  principles  there  would  be  no 
difficulty  in  placing  in  heaven  all  the  reptiles  that  infest  our  globe. 
True,  they  are  not  “  under  the  moral  government  of  God  in  this 
world” — true,  they  are  neither  holy  nor  unholy ,  just  like  infants ! 
but,  notwithstanding  all  this,  “  what  if  God  translates  them  to 
heaven,  that  they  may  wake  up  there  in  the  beauty  of  holiness  ?” 
Besides  with  these  divines,  death  must  possess  some  very  potent 
charm,  since  it  can  metamorphose  a  being,  that  has  no  moral 
character,  into  one  possessing  a  moral  character— can  place  a  be¬ 
ing  “  under  the  moral  government  of  God,”  that  was  never  be¬ 
fore  under  a  moral  government— and  can,  in  a  moment ,  in  the 
twinkling  of  an  eye,  cause  a  being  that  was  neither  holy  nor 
unholy'"  to  wake  up  in  heaven  in  the  beauty  of  holiness  !” 


117 


rifled  infants,  were  not  redeemed,  they  could  not 
unite  in  singing  the  song  of  redeeming  love,  (Rev. 
i.  5.)  Now  all  the  redeemed  were,  prior  to  their 
redemption,  under  the  curse  of  the  law,  that  is, 
under  a  broken  law,  and  subjected  to  its  curse,  or 
penalty.  “When  the  fullness  of  the  time  was 
come,  God  sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a  woman, 
made  under  the  law,  to  redeem  them  that  were 
under  the  law.”  (Gal.  iv.  5,  6.)  “Christ  hath 
redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being 
made  a  curse  for  us.”  (Chap.  iii.  13.)  Redeemed 
infants  are,  therefore,  to  be  viewed  as  being-  orio-i- 
nally  under  the  curse  of  a  broken  law.  Such  truly 
is  their  moral  condition  by  nature.  But  how  came 
they  into  that  deplorable  condition,  a  condition 
which  rendered  necessary  a  redemption ,  before 
they  could  be  happy  with  God?  They  were  not 
brought  into  it  in  consequence  of  their  own  sinful 
conduct ;  for  they  are  incapable  of  sinning.  It 
must,  therefore,  have  been  the  conduct  of  some 
other  that  subjected  them  to  the  curse.  And  what 
other,  but  Adam"?  Do  the  scriptures  point  out  to 
us  any  other  ?  And  if  Adam,  by  transgression, 
brought  all  his  infant  seed  under  the  curse  of  that 
law  which  he  violated,  it  necessarily  follows,  that 
he  acted  in  the  character  of  their  representative. 
The  conclusion  is  inevitable. 


118 


Thus,  then,  we  have  proved,  that  by  a  federal 
arrangement,  Adam  was  constituted  the  represen¬ 
tative  of  the  human  race.  And  thus,  also,  we  have 
paved  the  way  for  proving,  what  many  either  igno¬ 
rantly  or  wilfully  deny,  the  imputation  of  Adam’s 
first  sin  to  his  posterity. 


119 


CHAPTER  V. 

IMPUTATION  DEFINED,  AND  THE  POINT  IN 
DEBATE  PRESENTED. 

That  the  judge  of  all  the  earth  would  do  right, 
was  the  firm  conviction  of  Abraham,  in  relation  to 
the  threatened  destruction  of  Sodom.  Indeed,  in¬ 
justice  is  infinitely  far  from  having  a  place  in  the 
character  of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel.  “He  is  a 
God  of  truth,  without  iniquity  ;  just  and  right  is 
he.”  No  thought,  therefore,  that  would  militate 
against  the  most  perfect  justice  of  God,  should 
ever  be  entertained  for  a  moment.  Every  such 
thought  should  be  banished  from  the  mind  with 
abhorrence  and  indignation.  He,  with  an  infinite 
knowledge  of  his  own  character,  says,  “  I,  the 
Lord,  am  a  just  God.”  And  to  this  declaration 
every  intelligent  mind  must  respond,  in  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  the  Psalmist,  “  Justice  and  judgment  are 
the  habitation  of  thy  throne.”  Accordingly,  in 
maintaining  the  “  imputation  of  Adam’s  sin  to  his 
posterity,”  we  also  maintain,  that  this  imputation 
is  an  act  of  justice  on  the  part  of  the  divine  gov¬ 
ernment.  For,  Jehovah’s  justice,  in  this  matter, 
we  hold  to  be  clearly  vindicated  on  the  ground  of 
the  federal  representative  character,  which  Adam 
sustained  at  the  time  when  the  sin,  which  is  de- 


120 


dared  to  be  imputed  to  us,  was  Committed  by  him. 
That  Adam  did  really  sustain  such  a  character,  we 
have  abundantly  proved.  And  now,  according-  to 
the  plan  previously  proposed,  we  proceed  to  prove 
the  imputation  of  his  breach  of  covenant  to  his  off¬ 
spring — his  representees.  A  few  explanatory  re¬ 
marks,  however,  must  first  be  made,  with  the  view 
of  presenting  the  precise  point  in  discussion. 

Imputation,  according  to  scriptural  usage,  de¬ 
notes  a  charging,  or  setting  over  of  something  to 
one’s  account  in  a  judicial  manner — it  is  simply  a 
judicial  reckoning ,  having  either  sin  or  righteous¬ 
ness  for  its  subject,  and  a  moral  being  for  its  ob¬ 
ject.  Thus,  when  God  is  said  “  to  impute  sin”  to 
a  person,  the  meaning  is,  that,  as  a  Judge,  he 
reckons  or  accounts  that  person  to  be  a  sinner,  and 
consequently  a  fit  subject  of  punishment,  on  ac¬ 
count  of  the  sin  or  sins  thus  reckoned  to  him,  or 
placed  to  his  charge.  Hence  the  non-imputation 
of  sin,  is  equivalent  to  the  pardoning  of  sin,  or  the 
holding  of  a  person  guiltless.  “Blessed  is  the 
man  unto  whom  the  Lord  imputeth  not  iniquity.” 
(Ps.  xxxii.  £.)  Again,  when  God  is  said  to  impute 
righteousness  to  a  person,  (as  in  Rom.  iv.  11.)  the 
meaning  is,  that  he  judicially  reckons  or  accounts 
that  person  to  be  righteous  and  entitled  to  his  fa- 


I 


121 

vor,  in  consequence  of  the  righteousness  thus  reck¬ 
oned  or  set  over  to  his  account. 

Sometimes  “  to  impute,”  in  scripture,  is  to  charge 
to  the  account  of  persons  that  which  is  properly 
and  personally  their  own,  with  a  view  to  their  in¬ 
jury  or  benefit,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  thing 
imputed.  Thus  Shimei  said  to  David,  “Let  not 
my  Lord  impute  iniquity  unto  me,  for  thy  servant 
doth  know  that  I  have  sinned.”  And  thus,  also, 
the  good  deed  of  Phinehas,  in  executing  justice  up¬ 
on  Zimri  and  Cosbi,  “  was  counted,”  or  imputed, 
“  to  him  for  righteousness  unto  all  generations.” 
But  according  to  the  more  ordinary  and  theologi¬ 
cal  use  of  the  term,  it  denotes  God’s  judicial  act  in 
charging  to  the  account  of  persons  that,  which  is 
not  properly  and  personally  their  own,  antecedent¬ 
ly  to  such  act  of  imputation.  Thus  Adam’s  eating 
of  the  forbidden  fruit  was  not  the  proper,  personal 
act  of  his  descendants,  yet  the  sin  of  that  act,  as 
we  will  endeavor  to  prove,  is  imputed  to  each  of 
them.  Neither  are  those  acts  of  obedience  and 
suffering,  which  constitute  the  righteousness  of 
Jesus  Christ,  the  proper,  personal  acts  of  believers, 
yet  the  scriptures  manifestly  teach,  that  they  have 
that  righteousness  imputed  to  them,  or  placed  over 
to  their  account ;  and  that  God  deals  with  them 
in  the  same  manner  as  if  they  had  wrought  it  out 

11 


122 


personally  by  themselves.  And  when  the  sins  of 
the  church  are  said  to  be  imputed  to  Christ,  so 
that  “  he  was  made  sin  for  us,”  it  is  never  imagin¬ 
ed  that  these  became  really  his  personal  sins,  but 
only,  that  they  became  his  in  law-reckoning,  in 
such  a  manner  as  that  he  was  treated  as  a  sinner, 
having  voluntarily  assumed  those  sins  with  a  view 
to  their  expiation. 

But  when  God  imputes  to  a  person  that  which 
is  not  properly  and  personally  his  own,  it  must  not 
be  supposed  that  he  acts  arbitrarily  in  the  matter  ; 
as  if  the  thing  imputed  were,  in  no  sense ,  the  per¬ 
son’s  antecedently  to  the  act  of  imputation.  Such 
procedure  would  seem  to  savor  of  injustice.  No 
imputation  of  this  kind,  we  believe,  ever  takes 
place  in  the  administration  of  Jehovah’s  righteous 
government.  The  thing  imputed,  although  not 
actually ,  is  nevertheless  virtually ,  the  person’s, 
before  the  imputation  of  it  takes  place.  And  there 
are  twro  ways  in  which  sin  may  become  virtually 
and  legally  a  person’s  before  imputation,  although 
he  had  no  personal  agency  in  the  commission  of 
it  ;  viz  :  by  suretiship ,  and  by  representation. 
The  sins  of  elect  sinners  were  imputed  to  the 
Mediator  in  virtue  of  his  undertaken  suretiship ; 
that  is,  having  assumed  them  by  a  voluntary 
sponsion,  they  became  virtually  his.  and  were  ac- 


123 


cordingly  charged  to  his  account,  and  he  was  held 
obligated  to  endure  their  punishment.  Corres¬ 
ponding  to  this,  Paul,  presenting  himself  as  the 
surety  of  Onesimus,  says  to  Philemon,  “If  he 
hath  wronged  thee,  or  oweth  thee  ought,  put  that 
on  mine  account,”  or  impute  it  to  me.  But  in  re¬ 
lation  to  the  imputation  of  Adam’s  sin  to  his  pos¬ 
terity,  that  imputation  takes  place,  not  in  virtue  of 
suretiship,  (for  his  posterity  never  stood  surety  for 
him, )  but  in  virtue  of  representation.  When  he, 
as  a  representative  sinned,  all  his  representees  vir¬ 
tually  sinned  in  him.  In  consequence  of  this  legal 
connection  between  him  and  them,  his  sin  was  le¬ 
gally  their  sin  ;  and  it  is  charged  to  their  account, 
not  merely  as  the  sin  of  another ,  but  as  the  sin  of 
their  own  representative ,  and  in  this  respect,  vir¬ 
tually  theirs  ;  and  as  such,  it  is  imputed,  or  judi¬ 
cially  reckoned  to  them.  In  the  same  manner 
also,  does  the  righteousness  of  Christ  come  to  be 
imputed  to  believers.  When  he  wrought  out  that 
righteousness,  he  was  acting  in  the  character  of  a 
representative  ;  it  was,  therefore,  virtually  and 
legally  their  righteousness  as  soon  as  it  was  com¬ 
pleted.  It  is  not  theirs,  however,  actually,  and  so 
as  to  enjoy  justification  before  God  on  the  ground 
of  it,  until  God  imputes  it  to  them  for  this  pur¬ 
pose,  in  the  day  of  their  union  to  Christ  by  faith. 


124 


It  may,  moreover,  be  proper  to  remark,  that 
Christ’s  righteousness  is  ours,  even  more  than  is 
the  sin  of  Adam,  prior  to  its  imputation.  For  in 
addition  to  representation,  faith  also  gives  us  an 
interest  in  Emmanuel’s  righteousness.  It  appro¬ 
priates,  or  takes  into  possession  that  righteous¬ 
ness,  on  the  ground  of  the  free  grant  made  of  it 
to  sinners  in  the  Gospel.  And  then  God  imputes 
it  to  the  believer,  sets  it  down  to  his  account,  (the 
moment  he  thus  appropriates  it  by  faith, )  not  in¬ 
deed  as  the  righteousness  of  another,  with  whom 
he  has  no  connection,  but  as  the  righteousness  of 
his  representative,  and  now  taken  into  his  posses¬ 
sion  by  an  appropriating  act  of  faith  ;  and  accord¬ 
ingly,  he  forthwith  issues  the  sentence  of  his  justi¬ 
fication.  “Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was 
counted  (imputed)  to  him  for  righteousness.” 
Rom.  iv.  3 — 6.  9.  11.  22 — 24. 

In  our  present  discussion,  then,  the  point  to  be 
maintained  is,  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed,  or 
judicially  charged  to  the  account  of  all  his  pos¬ 
terity,  not  as  being  their  own  personal  sin,  but  as 
being  the  sin  of  their  legal  representative,  and 
moral  head,  and  in  this  sense,  their  sin ;  they  be¬ 
ing  federally  unted  with  him,  at  the  time  it  was 
committed. 

And  that  this  point  may  be  fairly  presented,  and 


125 


the  subject  properly  guarded,  we  would  farther  re¬ 
mark,  that  it  is  only  the  first  sin  of  Adanq  and  not 
any  of  his  other  sins,  for  the  imputation  of  which 
to  his  posterity  we  contend  ;  as  his  representative 
character  ceased  with  the  perpetration  of  his  first 
offense — the  covenant  being  then  broken,  the 
federal  relation,  which  had  been  constituted  be¬ 
tween  him  and  his  children,  was  for  ever  dissolved. 

It  may  also  be  noticed  here,  that  the  distinction, 
which  some  make,  when  treating  of  this  subject, 
between  the  guilt  and  ill-desert  of  Adam’s  sin,  is 
unwarrantable ;  and  then  to  maintain  the  imputa¬ 
tion  of  the  former,  and  not  of  the  latter,  is  un- 
scriptural  and  absurd.  If  the  term  guilt  be  pro¬ 
perly  defined,  if  it  be  understood  in  the  sense,  in 
which  it  is  unquestionably  used  in  the  Westmin¬ 
ster  Confession  of  faith  and  Catechisms,  then  we 
are  satisfied  with  the  declaration,  that  “the  guilt 
of  Adam’s  first  sin  is  imputed  to  his  posterity.” 
But  to  define  “  guilt,”  as  only  denoting  a  mere 
liability  or  exposure,  or  even  obligation  to  punish¬ 
ment ,  is  not  only  to  pervert  the  meaning  of  that 
term,  as  used  by  the  old  divines,  but  also  to  per¬ 
vert  and  corrupt  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  as 
taught  in  the  Scriptures,  and  set  forth  in  all  the 
Confessions  of  the  Reformed  churches.  The  term 
guilt  has  always,  until  lately,  been  understood  to 

11* 


126 


signify  “  obligation  to  punishment  arising  out  of 
sin,”  or,  that  in  sin  which  obligates  to  punish¬ 
ment  ;  and  what  can  that  be  but  ill-desert  ?  The 
Reformers  distinguished  “guilt”  into  potential  and 
actual.  By  the  former  they  intended  the  “in¬ 
trinsic  demerit  of  sin,”  that  which  is  damnable  in 
sin,  and  which  can  never  be  separated  from  sin : 
By  the  latter  they  intended  “a  judicial  ordination 
to  punishment,”  and  which  may  be  separated  from 
sin  ;  a  thing  that  happens  in  the  case  of  all  those 
who  are  justified  :  For,  although  sin  still  remains 
in  them,  their  actual  guilt  is  removed,  so  that 
there  will  be  no  condemnation  to  them  for  ever. 
Now,  it  is  evident,  that  when  the  old  divines 
spoke  of  the  guilt  of  Adam’s  sin  being  imputed  to 
his  posterity,  they  meant  guilt  in  both  of  these 
acceptations,  viz  :  the  real  demerit  of  Adam’s  sin, 
together  with  actual  obligation  to  punishment,  on 
account  of  that  demerit  :  Because,  their  usual 
mode  of  speaking  on  the  subject  was,  that  Adam’s 
disobedience ,  his  sin ,  his  transgression ,  his  offense , 
the  blame  of  his  act,  &lc.,  was  imputed  to  his  de¬ 
scendants.  And  that  the  term  “  guilt,”  is  used  in 
this  extensive  sense  in  our  Confession  of  faith  and 
Catechisms,  appears  from  this,  that  all  mankind 
are  there  said  to  have  sinned  in  Adam,  and  to  iiave 
fallen  with  him  in  his  first  transgression.  Besides, 


127 


how  absurd  is  it,  yea,  how  unjust  is  it,  to  repre¬ 
sent  God  as  laying  men  under  obligation  to  suffer 
punishment,  without,  at  the  same  time,  charging 
them  with  any  blame-worthiness,  ill-desert,  or 
demerit !  Mr.  Fisher,  in  his  Catechism,  very  pro¬ 
perly  remarks,  that  “there  can  be  no  condemna¬ 
tion,  passed  by  a  righteous  judge,  where  there  is  no 
crime.”  Accordingly,  while  we  deny  that  the 
personal  act  of  Adam,  in  eating  the  forbidden  fruit, 
is  imputed  to  his  posterity,  we,  at  the  same  time, 
maintain  that  the  sin  of  that  act,  its  demerit ,  its 
guilt ,  both  potential  and  actual ,  is  imputed  to 
every  soul  of  them ;  which  imputation  was  virtu¬ 
ally  made  when  our  first  parents  transgressed  the 
covenant  of  God,  and  is  actually  made,  the  mo¬ 
ment  they  are  successively  brought  into  existence. 

Having  made  these  preliminary  statements,  we 
will  now  proceed  to  advance  the  contemplated 
arguments,  which  go  to  prove  the  imputation  of 
Adam’s  Jirst  sin  to  his  posterity.  • 


128 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  IMPUTATION  OF  ADAM’S  FIRST  SIN  TO 
HIS  POSTERITY  PROVED. 

Sec.  1. — The  Doctrine  Proved  from  the  Fact  of 
Adam's  Sustaining  a  Representative  Character 
at  the  Time  he  Sinned. 

That  Adam’s  first  sin  is  imputed  to  his  posterity 
is  proved  from  the  fact  of  his  sustaining  a  repre¬ 
sentative  character,  when  that  sin  was  committed. 
This  fact  has  been  sufficiently  proved.*  A  denial 
of  it  must  betray  a  reckless  disregard  of  the  truth. 
Why,  then,  did  God  invest  Adam  with  such  a  char¬ 
acter1?  Why  did  he  establish  a  covenant  with  him 
in  that  character?  The  whole  of  that  solemn  trans¬ 
action  must,  indeed,  have  been  a  piece  of  divine 
mockery,  if  “  the  Lord  God”  did  not  intend  that  all 
Adam’s  posterity  should  be  implicated  in  his  con¬ 
duct.  Did  the  representative  sin  ?  and  shall  the  re¬ 
presentees  be  held  innocent  ?  If  God  do  not 
impute  the  sin  of  the  representative  to  those 
whom  he  represented,  he  must  disregard  an  ar¬ 
rangement  of  his  own  making,  he  must  turn 
his  back  upon  a  constitution  of  his  own  set¬ 
tling.  Justice,  therefore,  to  his  own  character, 
respect  to  his  own  institution,  and  faithfulness  to 


*  See  Chap.  iv. 


129 


his  own  word,  all  demand  of  him  the  imputation 
of  Adam’s  sin  to  his  posterity.  Had  Adam  per¬ 
formed  the  stipulated  condition,  even  the  enemies 
of  this  doctrine  would,  no  doubt,  consider  it  right 
and  proper  to  have  his  obedience  imputed  to  all 
those  in  whose  name  he  acted.  And  is  it  not 
equally  just  and  proper  in  God,  since  he  failed  in 
performing  that  condition,  to  charge  them  all  with 
his  disobedience  1  Indeed,  for  God  not  to  impute 
Adam’s  sin  to  his  posterity,  would  be  to  overturn 
all  that  he  did  in  constituting  him  their  federal  re¬ 
presentative.  Were  not  the  conduct  of  the  re¬ 
presentative  charged  to  the  account  of  the  repre¬ 
sented,  his  representation  would  have  been  no  re¬ 
presentation  !  The  truth  of  our  doctrine,  there¬ 
fore,  is  clearly  established,  from  the  fact  of  Adam’s 
representative  character. 

Sec.  2. — From  the  Apostle's  Declaration.  Rom. 

v.  19. 

That  Adam’s  first  sin  is  imputed  to  his  posterity 
the  Apostle  proves,  when  he  declares,  that  “By 
one  man’s  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners.” 
Rom.  v.  19.  The  context  sufficiently  shows  that 
the  word  “many,”  in  that  place,  denotes  the 
whole  posterity  of  Adam,  as  was  formerly  stated. 
Now,  it  is  not  said  that  they  became  sinners  by 


\ 


130 


the  actual  commission  of  sin,  nor  by  the  imitation 
of  Adam’s  sinful  conduct,  but  that  they  “were 
made  sinners  by  one  man’s  disobedience.’’  They 
are  represented  as  being  passive  in  this  matter. 
They  were  constituted  sinners ,  or  set  down  as  sin¬ 
ners.  It  is  not  said,  that  they  made  themselves  sin¬ 
ners.  The  Apostle  obviously  intends  that  it  was 
God,  the  righteous  Judge,  who  made  or  constitut¬ 
ed  them  sinners.  But  God  makes  none  sinners,  in 
any  other  way,  than  by  imputing ,  or  judicially 
reckoning  sin  to  them.  And  the  sin  imputed,  in 
the  case  specified,  is  expressly  called  “the  one 
man’s  disobedience.”  Thus  it  is  plain,  that  God 
has  constituted  all  men  sinners,  has  placed  them 
under  that  denomination,  by  having  charged  to 
their  account  “  the  disobedience  of  one  man.” 
And  this  conclusion,  which  is  so  manifest  from 
the  Apostle’s  language,  cannot  be  avoided  by  say¬ 
ing,  as  some  do,  that  all  that  is  here  meant  is, 
that  “  God  treats  men  as  if  they  were  sinners  on 
account  of  Adam’s  sin,  in  subjecting  them  to  tem¬ 
poral  death.”  Because,  God  is  a  God  of  justice, 
and  he  never  treats  any  as  sinners,  unless  they 
really  be  so  in  the  eye  of  the  divine  law.  And  if 
we  say  that  “God  treats  men  as  sinners  on  ac¬ 
count  of  Adam’s  sin,”  a  respect  to  the  justice  and 
holiness  of  God,  should  also  lead  us  to  say,  that 


131 


his  sin  must  first  be  imputed  to  them,  or  legally 
charged  to  their  account.  If  we  overlook  this 
divine  imputation,  we  run  ourselves  into  inextri¬ 
cable  difficulties  ;  we  dishonor  the  character  of 
Gcd ;  we  injure  the  truth  of  his  holy  word. 

What  a  perversion  of  the  Apostle’s  language  is 
it,  to  maintain  as  others  do,  that  all  he  intends  by 
this  declaration  is,  that  “men  became  actual  sin¬ 
ners  in  consequence  of  Adam’s  disobedience  !” 
To  elicit  such  a  meaning,  two  important  changes 
must  be  made  in  the  Apostle’s  words ;  the  word 
“  by,”  must  be  changed  into  “in  consequence  of,” 
and  the  words  “  were  made  sinners,”  into  “  made 
themselves  sinners changes,  which  the  struct¬ 
ure  of  the  Apostle’s  language  utterly  refuses. 
Nor  is  this  all,  the  next  clause  would  also  need  to 
be  changed,  and  read,  “  so  in  consequence  of  the 
obedience  of  one  shall  many  make  themselves 
actually  righteous  !”  a  sentiment  at  variance  with 
the  whole  tenor  of  the  Gospel.  This  latter  clause, 
however,  in  which  the  Apostle  does  say,  “so  by 
the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  righte¬ 
ous,”  obviously  confirms  the  view  we  have  taken 
of  the  former.  For  is  it  possible  to  conceive  of 
any  other  way  in  which  sinners  can  be  constituted 
righteous  by  Christ's  obedience ,  except  that  obedi¬ 
ence  be  imputed  to  them,  or  placed  over  to  their 


132 


account  ?  Without  such  an  imputation,  what  in¬ 
fluence  can  his  obedience  have  in  changing*  a  sin- 
ner’s  state  before  God?  Without  such  an  impu¬ 
tation,  how  can  his  obedience  become  the  sinner’s 
righteousness,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  obtain  for 
him,  in  law,  a  sentence  of  justification  on  the 
ground  of  it?  Now,  the  Apostle  asserts,  that  in 
precisely  the  same  manner  in  which  we  are  made 
righteous  by  Christ’s  obedience,  we  were  made 
sinners  by  Adam’s  disobedience.  His  declaration, 
then,  that  “by  one  man’s  disobedience  many  were 
made  sinners,”  most  assuredly  contains  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  imputation  of  Adam’s  sin  to  his  pos¬ 
terity. 

a 

Sec.  3. — From  the  Condemnation  of  all  Men  on 
Account  of  Adam's  Sin. 

“  The  judgment  was  by  one  [offense]  to  condem¬ 
nation. — By  the  offense  of  one,  judgment  came 
upon  all  men  to  condemnation.”  Rom.  v.  16.  18. 
Here,  on  the  ground  of  Adam’s  first  offense,  all 
men  are  represented  as  being  judicially  condemned 
to  endure  the  penalty  of  the  divine  law.  No  other 
reasonable  construction  can  be  put  on  these  words. 
In  our  former  explication  of  them,  we  proved  that 
this  was  necessarily  their  meaning.  Here,  then, 
we  are  taught,  that  Jehovah,  the  righteous  Judge. 


133 


gives  “judgment”  against  all  men ;  that  this  judg¬ 
ment  involves  their  “  condemnation  and  that  all 
this  is  grounded  upon  the  single  “offense  of  the 
one  man.”  Now,  who  is  so  blind  as  not  to  dis¬ 
cover,  in  this  divine  procedure,  the  imputation  of 
Adam’s  offense  to  all  his  seed?  Does  not  this 
“judgment  to  condemnation,”  proceed  on  the  as¬ 
sumption  of  legal  guilt?  Would  God  condemn 
the  guiltless  ?  If  then  he  condemns  men  on  ac¬ 
count  of  Adam’s  offense,  as  the  Apostle  asserts, 
must  he  not  have  viewed  them  as  charged  with 
that  offense  ?  But  as  they  never  "personally  com¬ 
mitted  that  offense,  how  can  he  condemn  them  as 
being  charged  with  it,  unless  it  had  been  imputed , 
or  judicially  reckoned  to  them  ?  God’s  act  of  con¬ 
demnation,  in  this  case,  most  certainly  supposes  a 
previous  act  of  imputation.  He  does  not  con¬ 
demn,  and  then  impute,  but  first  imputes,  and 
then  condemns.  Hence  it  is  utterly  inconceivable, 
how  we  can  maintain  with  the  Apostle,  that  “by 
the  offense  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to 
condemnation,”  and  yet  deny  the  imputation  of 
that  offense  to  his  posterity. 

The  fact,  that  the  sentence  of  condemnation 
spoken  of,  is  not  fully  executed  upon  all ,  argues 
nothing  against  the  fact  of  all  having  been  laid 
under  it,  in  the  first  instance.  A  criminal  may  be 

12 


134 


condemned  to  the  gallows,  and  yet,  before  the 
execution  of  the  sentence,  obtain  a  pardon.  God 
reverses  this  sentence  of  condemnation  in  the  case 
of  believers,  by  pronouncing  in  their  favor  a  sen¬ 
tence  of  justification.  The  righteousness  of 
Christ,  being  imputed  to  them,  entirely  cancels 
the  legal  guilt,  not  only  of  Adam’s  offense,  which 
had  been  committed  in  their  name,  and  charged 
to  their  account,  but  also  of  all  their  own  personal 
offenses.  Condemnation,  therefore,  universally 
precedes  justification.  And  justice  requires  that 
condemnation,  in  all  cases,  should  be  preceded  by 
a  guilty  cause ;  which  guilty  cause  is  expressly 
called,  in  the  passage  referred  to,  the  “  one  of¬ 
fense”  of  “  the  one  man.”  It,  therefore,  must  be 
regarded  as  being  imputed  to  as  many  as  have 
been  laid  under  “  the  judgment  of  condemnation,’ 
that  is  to  “  all  men.”  And  the  argument  is 
strengthened,  when  it  is  considered,  that  among 
the  “all  men”  designated,  infants  are  included, 
who  are  chargeable  with  no  personal  offenses  of 
their  own,  having  never  sinned  “after  the  simili¬ 
tude  of  Adam’s  transgression.” 


135 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  SAME  SUBJECT  CONTINUED. 

Sec.  1. — The  Doctrine  Proved  from  the  Universal 
loss  of  the  Image  of  God. 

Adam’s  posterity  being  deprived  of  that  image 
of  God,  in  which  he  was  created,  proves  the  impu¬ 
tation  of  his  sin  to  them.  Moses  informs  us,  that 
“  God  created  man  in  his  own  image.”  The 
moral  image  of  God,  according  to  the  Apostle 
Paul,  consists  in  “knowledge,  righteousness,  and 
true  holiness.”  He  says  to  the  Colossians,  “ye 
have  put  on  the  new  man,  which  is  renewed  in 
knowledge,  after  the  image  of  him  that  created 
•  him,”  chap.  iii.  10;  and  to  the  Ephesians,  “put 
on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is  created  in 
righteousness  and  true  holiness,”  chap.  iv.  24. 
Adam,  accordingly,  was  created  with  knowledge 
in  his  understanding,  rectitude  in  his  will,  and 
holiness  in  bis  affections.  This  was  his  “original 
righteousness.”  This  gave  him  an  exact  conform- 
ity  to  the  moral  law,  under  which  he  was  created. 
As  he  could  not  have  been,  for  a  single  moment, 
without  such  a  law,  without  being  also,  at  the 
same  time,  independent  of  his  Creator  ;  so  he  was 
no  sooner  a  living  soul,  than,  as  has  been  already 
remarked,  this  law,  which  was  given  him  in  his 


136 


creation,  found  him  perfectly  conformed  to  all  its 
requirements.  It  found  him  not  only  as  a  crea¬ 
ture,  but  as  possessing  all  the  requisites  of  an  in¬ 
telligent  and  upright  moral  agent.  It  found  him 
possessing  an  intellectual  aptitude  for  knowing 
the  great  object  of  his  love  and  worship,  and  all 
the  duties  which  devolved  on  him  in  the  relation 
of  a  creature  :  It  found  him  possessing  a  will  char¬ 
acterized  with  perfect  rectitude,  “lying  straight 
with  the  will  of  God,”  and  powerfully  inclined  to 
choose  whatever  God  chose,  and  to  refuse  what¬ 
ever  God  refused :  And  it  found  him  also  possess¬ 
ing  affections,  which  were  holy,  pure,  undisor¬ 
dered,  and  bent  on  the  enjoyment  of  suitable  ob¬ 
jects.  Thus,  man,  in  his  creation,  was  constitut¬ 
ed  morally  upright.  On  his  soul  was  engraven, 
“  holiness  to  the  Lord.”  That  image  of  God, 
of  which  we  are  speaking,  gave  perfection  to  his 
nature,  as  a  rational,  moral,  and  accountable  crea¬ 
ture.  Without  it,  he  would  not  have  been  com¬ 
plete,  his  nature  would  not  have  been  adapted  to 
answer  the  moral  ends  of  his  creation. 

But  when  we  speak  of  Adam’s  receiving,  in  his 
very  creation,  this  “divine  image,”  which,  for  the 
time  being,  constituted  his  righteousness  before 
God,  we  are  not  to  be  understood  as  speaking  of 
moral  acts  'performed  by  him ,  but  of  moral  princi ~ 


137 


pies  implanted  in  him.*  We  mean,  that  he  was 
righteous  in  principle ,  before  that  he  was  righteous 
in  act ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  he  possessed 
righteous  principles ,  before  he  performed  righteous 
actions.  Many,  we  know,  deny  this,  and  stoutly 
maintain,  on  the  contrary,  that  there  can  be  no 
righteousness,  or  holiness,  but  what  consists  in 
voluntary  acts .  They  will  not  admit,  that  such  a 
thing  as  righteousness  in  principle  is  possible. 
Accordingly,  they  deny,  that  Adam  was  either 
righteous  or  unrighteous,  holy  or  unholy,  till  once 
he  began  to  exercise  his  will,  not  being  till  then 
morally  different  from  the  brute  creation.  Hence, 
also,  they  deny  the  correctness  of  the  view  which 
we  take  of  the  u  moral  image  of  God,”  after 
which  man  was  originally  created,  when  we  refer 
it  to  the  principles  of  his  moral  nature,  and  not  to 
the  voluntary  acts  of  his  life.  But  their  philoso¬ 
phy  is  vain  and  deceitful.  For  according  to  it, 
man  made  himself  in  the  image  of  God ,  inasmuch 
as  he  was  the  author  of  those  voluntary  acts, 
which,  we  are  told,  must  always  constitute  right¬ 
eousness  or  holiness  :  And  according  to  it,  man, 
also,  made  himself  upright ,  if  his  uprightness  or 

'*  By  a  principle ,  we  understand  an  inherent  quality  or  power 
naturally  tending  to  its  own  developement:— “  a  constitutional 
propensity,”— “  a  cause  causing.” 

12* 


138 


conformity  to  the  moral  law,  in  the  first  instance, 
proceeded  from  the  exercise  of  his  own  will. 
This  philosophy,  therefore,  is  diametrically  op¬ 
posed  to  the  plain  declarations  of  the  Spirit  of 
Truth,  that  “  God  created  man  in  his  own  image” — • 
and  that  11  God  made  man  upright.”  If  it  be  ad¬ 
mitted,  that  Adam’s  first  acts,  as  a  moral  agent, 
were  holy,  it  ought,  also,  to  be  admitted,  that 
they  proceeded  from  holy  principles  implanted  in 
his  nature.  If  it  be  asked,  Why  do  not  trees 
walk  and  graze  like  cattle  ?  Why  do  not  cattle 
talk  and  reason  like  men  ?  Why  do  not  sheep  live 

by  catching  their  prey  like  lions  ?  Why  do  not 

► 

thorns  bear  grapes,  and  thistles  figs?  We  an¬ 
swer,  because  such  things  are  not  agreeable  to  the 
inherent  principles  of  their  respective  natures. 

Now,  did  Adam,  as  soon  as  created,  perform 
holy  acts  ?  Then,  surely,  this  happened  in  agree¬ 
ableness  to  the  principles  of  his  nature.  Conse¬ 
quently  he  was  indued  with  holy  principles.  The 
fish  of  the  sea,  the  fowls  of  the  air,  the  beasts  of 
the  field,  and  the  creeping  things  of  the  earth, 
were  all  found  acting  out  the  principles  of  their 
nature  ;  and  must  we  make  man  an  exception  to 
this  rule  of  action  ?  Must  we  say,  that  being  in 
possession  of  a  nature  which  was  neither  holy  nor 
unholy,  he  was  found,  nevertheless,  performing 


139 


holy  acts  ?  The  thing  is  perfectly  absurd.  The 
truth  is,  had  not  Adam  been  created  subjectively 
holy,  or  holy  in  principle,  he  would  have  been  in- 
capcitated  for  the  performance  of  holy  actions. 
Had  he  been  created  neither  holy  nor  unholy,  and 
had  he  acted  agreeably  to  his  nature,  his  actions 
would  have  been  neither  holy  nor  unholy.  The 
act  must  be  a  developement  of  the  principle  from 
which  it  proceeds,  and  partake  of  the  same  quality. 
Accordingly,  Adam  was  holy  in  principle,  before 
he  was  holy  in  act.  And  hence,  his  “  orignal 
righteousness,”  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  “the 
imaofe  of  God,”  in  which  he  was  created,  belonged 
to  his  very  nature,  was  essential  to  him  as  a  com¬ 
plete  moral  agent,  and  was  not  something  acquired 
by  his  after  acts.  And  to  assert  the  contrary,  is 
to  destroy  all  just  conceptions  concerning  the 
creature  man ;  as  if  it  could  be  predicated  of  him, 
in  any  individual  instance,  that  he  was  neither  a 
saint,  nor  a  sinner,  neither  a  righteous  nor  an  un¬ 
righteous  being,  without,  at  the  same  time,  anni¬ 
hilating  him  as  a  man,  and  turning  him  over  into 
the  ranks  of  the  brute  creation.  Adam  surely  ex¬ 
isted  before  he  acted.  But  he  could  not  have  ex¬ 
isted  as  a  man,  as  a  moral  being ,  as  a  subject  of 
law ,  unless  it  could  have  been  predicated  of  him 
in  his  existence,  that  he  was  either  righteous  or 


140 


unrighteous.  Hence,  as  he  was  not,  at  the  first, 
unrighteous,  but  righteous,  it  follows,  that  he  ex¬ 
isted  as  righteous,  before  he  acted  righteously. 
Accordingly,  righteousness  was  inherent  in  the 
principles  of  his  moral  constitution.  And  this 
view  of  the  matter  is  evidently  confirmed  by  the 
inspired  declaration,  that  “God  saw  every  thing 
that  he  had  made,  and  behold  it  was  very  good.” 
Every  creature  was  indued  with  a  nature  fully  an¬ 
swerable  to  the  end  of  its  creation.  Man  was 
made  for  moral  purposes,  and  was,  therefore, 
blessed  with  a  moral  nature,  indued  with  those 
principles,  which  in  their  appropriate  develope- 
ment,  would  necessarily  result  in  the  glorification 
and  enjoyment  of  God — thus  was  he  created  very 
good. 

Now,  have  the  original  principles  of  man’s  moral 
nature  suffered  any  change  1  or,  in  other  words, 
Has  the  image  of  God  been  lost  ?  That  it  was  lost, 
in  the  case  of  our  first  parents,  is  evident :  Because, 
immediately  after  they  had  transgressed  the  cove¬ 
nant,  they  found  themselves  naked ,  were  seized 
with  fear,  and  shunned  the  presence  of  God.  “  And 
they  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord  God,  walking- 
in  the  garden,  in  the  cool  of  the  day.  And  Adam 
and  his  wife  hid  themselves  from  the  presence  of 
the  Lord  God,  among  the  trees  of  the  garden. 


141 


And  the  Lord  God  called  unto  Adam,  and  said  un- 
to  him,  Where  art  thou  ?  And  he  said,  I  heard 
thy  voice  in  the  garden,  and  I  was  afraid,  because 
I  was  naked ;  and  I  hid  myself.5’  Gen.  iii.  8 — 10. 
Now,  had  their  knowledge,  righteousness,  and 
holiness,  remained  the  same  as  before,  such  a  re¬ 
cord  as  this  would  never  have  been  entered  in  the 
book  of  God,  concerning  them.  But,  has  this 
loss,  also,  been  extended  to  all  their  posterity  that 
have  been  called  into  existence  ?  We  answer, 
yes  ;  for  the  following  reasons  : — 

After  Adam  had  lost  “the  image  of  God,”  in 
which  he  was  created,  we  find  it  written,  that  “he 
begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness,  after  his  image  ; 
and  called  his  name  Seth.”  Gen.  v.  3.*  Here 

*  “  Concerning  this  Seth  it  is  said,  Adam  hegat  him  “  in  his  own 
likeness,”  after  “his  image.”  It  does  not  alter  the  sense  of  the 
words,  though  we  leave  out  the  word  own ,  and  read  them  thus, 
in  his  likeness,  &c.  Let  us  consider  what  must  be  the  meaning 
of  this  description,  which  is  so  emphatically  expressed  in  hi& 
likeness,  in  his  image.  I  cannot  think  a  bodily  likeness  is  hereby 
signified;  as  if  the  meaning  of  the  language  is,  that  Seth  re¬ 
sembled  Adam,  in  the  attitude  of  his  body,  or  lineaments  of  his 
face.  There  was  no  need  for  being  so  particular  in  declaring 
this.  All  who  should  see  these  persons,  would  see  this.  This 
would  be  viewing  the  language  of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  a  very 
trifling  light.  Neither  would  it  be  a  treating  Scripture  style  with 
any  tolerable  decency,  to  understand  them  as  testifying,  that 
Adam  begat  a  creature  of  his  own  species that  the  creature 
he  begat  had  a  human  body,  and  a  rational  soul.  Was  not  this 


142 


the  “image  of  Adam,”  stands  in  contrast  with  the 
“  image  of  God.”  What  a  marked  difference  be¬ 
tween  the  moral  nature  of  Adam  and  that  of  Seth, 


likeness  notour  and  obvious  ?  What  room  can  there  be  to  doubt 
of  this  ?  This  likeness  must  be  viewed  in  a  moral  light.  Seth 
was  like  Adam  in  his  moral  state.  What  was  Adam’s  state, 
Seth’s  was  the  same.  What  was  Adam  by  this  time  ?  was  he 
not  a  sinner, — a  guilty  and  corrupt  person ?  Yes;  the  likeness 
Seth  was  begotten  in,  was  that  of  Adam.  That  Adam  was  con¬ 
sidered  as  a  sinner,  when  the  Spirit  says,  that  Seth  was  begot 
in  “  his  likeness,”  is  evident,  not  only  from  the  account  given  of 
his  breaking  the  covenant,  Gen.  iii.  6.,  but  also  from  what  im¬ 
mediately  follows  the  history  of  his  begetting  this  Son.  What 
that  is,  you  have  in  verse  5,  “  And  all  the  days  that  Adam  lived, 
were  nine  hundred  and  thirty  years :  and  he  died.”  Here  is  an 
account  of  him,  in  whose  likeness  Seth  was  begot.  What  sort 
of  a  man  was  this  as  to  his  moral  state?  Was  he  an  innocent 
or  a  guilty  person?  The  determining  this  point  will  make  it 
easy  to  find  whether  Seth’s  being  begotten  in  this  man’s  likeness 
was  to  his  honor,  or  not.  I  think  the  Divine  Spirit  decides  the 
question  in  the  verse  now  cited.  If  the  third  verse  was  now 
read  in  connection  with  this  one,  the  point  would  appear  clearly. 
“  And  Adam  lived  a  hundred  and  thirty  years,  and  begat  a  son 
in  his  own  likeness,  after  his  image ;  and  called  his  name  Seth. 
And  all  the  days  that  Adam  lived,  were  nine  hundred  and  thirty 
years ;  and  he  died.”  Here  we  may  easily  learn,  what  sort  of  an 
image  Seth  was  begot  in.  It  is  certain  that  it  was  that  of 
Adam’s  image.  But  the  question  is,  what  sort  of  image  was 
Adam’s?  Was  it  a  holy  or  sinful  one?  What  is  said  about 
him  in  the  5th  verse,  may  guide  us  here.  Says  the  Spirit,  “  do 
any  want  to  know  what  sort  of  a  man  Adam  was  by  this 
time  ?  why,  follow  him  a  little  further,  pursue  his  history,  and 
'before  you  go  a  great  way,  you  will  find  him  in  a  grave,— a 


143 


in  the  first  moments  of  their  existence !  The  one 
was  created  in  the  image  of  a  holy  God ;  the  other 
was  begotten  in  the  image  of  a  sinful  man  !  And 


breathless  and  so  a  lifeless  lump.  This  Adam,  who  begat  a  son  in 
his  likeness,  in  his  image,  this  much  will  I  tell  you  here  about 
him,  he  was  a  dying  man,  he  was  on  the  road  and  had  his  face 
toward  a  grave,  when  he  begat  this  son ;  death,  which  is  the 
wages  of  sin,  and  a  sure  visible  mark  of  it,  was  working  then 
with  him  \  and  accordingly,  after  no  very  great  number  of  years, 
from  his  having  this  son,  performed  its  last  work  upon  him :  and 
he  died.  Adam  then  was  a  sinful  man ;  and  so  his  image  be¬ 
hoved  to  be  a  sinful  one.  Seth  resembled  a  dying  man ;  and  a 
dying  man  is  the  sure  sign  of  a  sinful  one. 

“  I  might  further  notice,  that  light  might  possibly  be  borrowed  to 
this  point,  by  comparing  the  last  clause  of  the  1st  verse,  with 
this  3d  verse,  “In  the  day  that  God  created  man,  in  the  likeness 

of  God  made  he  him.*”  Verse  3.  “  And  Adam - begat  a  Son 

in  his  likeness.”  Observe,  that  it  is  not  said,  And  Adam  begat  a 
son  in  this  likeness.  Had  it  been  the  image  Adam  was  created 
in,  which  Seth  was  begot  in,  this  would  have  been  the  native 
way  of  expressing  it.  I  say  it  is  not  said,  Adam  begat  a  son  in 
this  likeness,  but  in  his  likeness. 

“  Thus  it  is  manifest,  that  Seth  was  corrupt  from  the  womb. 
Some  object,  Seth  was  begotten  in  Adam’s  likeness ;  Adam  was 
created  in  God’s  image ;  therefore  Seth  being  begotten  in  Adam’s 
likeness,  was  the  same  in  his  generation,  that  his  father  was  in 
his  creation. 

“  Ans.  If  Adam  had  retained  the  image  given  him  in  his  crea¬ 
tion,  Seth  would  have  received  it  in  his  generation.  But  we  are 
assured  that  it  was  long  after  he  had  lost  the  divine  image,  that 
he  had  this  son  ;  so  it  is  observed  that  he  lived  a  hundred  and 
thirty  years  before  he  begat  him.  Moreover, 

“  It  may  be  observed,  that  our  likeness  and  conformity  to  God,  is 


144 


this  being  the  case  with  one  of  Adam’s  children, 
no  argument  can  be  adduced  to  prove,  that  such  is 
not  the  case  with  all  his  children.  Indeed,  we  are 
said  to  be  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath ,  Eph.  ii. 
3.  ;  which  could  not  be  said,  if  by  nature  or  birth 
we  bore  the  “image  of  God,”  David  says,  “behold 
I  was  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother 
conceive  me,”  Ps.  li.  5. ;  which  he  could  not  have 
said,  in  truth,  had  he  been  formed  in  the  womb 
“after  the  image  and  likeness  of  God.” 

There  is  a  restoration  of  the  image  of  God  to 
the  soul,  in  regeneration.  “That  which  is  born 
of  the  Spirit  is  spirit.”  John  iii.  6.  “If  any  man 
be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature :  old  things 


never,  in  Scripture  language,  expressed  by  that  of  being  made  in 
the  image  or  likeness  of  any  man,  any  mere  man.  This  privi¬ 
lege  is  expressed  in  a  quite  different  manner,  2  Cor.  iii.  18. 
“  But  we  all  with  open  face,  beholding  as  in  a  glass,  the  glory  of 
the  Lord,  are  changed  into  the  same  image  from  glory  to  glory, 
even  as  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,”  Eph.  iv.  24.  “  And  that  ye 
put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God,  is  created  in  righteous¬ 
ness  and  true  holiness.”  Col.  iii.  10.  *  And  put  on  the  new 

man,  which  is  renewed  after  the  image  of  him  that  created 
him.’ 

“  It  is,  then,  certain  that  Adam,  on  the  back  of  his  transgressing 
the  covenant,  came  to  have  a  seed  corrupt  and  degenerate  from 
the  womb.  How  came  such  a  consequence  to  follow  his  so 
doing,  if  he  did  not  represent  them?  the  question,  I  judge  un¬ 
answerable,  and  therefore  shall  not  attempt  it.”— Rev.  R.  Smith. 


145 


are  passed  away ;  behold,  all  things  are  become 
new.”  £  Cor.  v.  17.  u  Put  /m  the  new  man, 
which  after  god  is  created  in  righteousness  and 
true  holiness.”  Eph.  iv.  £4.  “Ye  have  put  on 
the  new  man,  which  is  renewed  in  knowledge  af¬ 
ter  the  image  of  him  that  created  him.’  'Col. 
iii.  10.  Now,  if  the  “image  of  God”  be  restored 
to  the  soul,  in  regeneration,  then,  surely,  it  was 
wanting  there,  before  that  work  of  grace  was  per¬ 
formed.  And  if  infants  are  capable  subjects  of 
regeneration,  and  their  baptism  teaches  this,  then 
are  they  by  nature  destitute  of  the  “  image  of 
God.” 

Again,  the  Apostle  expressly  declares,  that 
“  there  is  none  righteous,  no,  not  one.”  Rom.  iii. 
10.  It  is  said,  indeed,  that  the  Apostle,  in  this 
place,  only  intends  adults,  or  such  as  have  crossed 
the  first  point  of  moral  agency.  But  where  is  the 
proof  for  such  an  assertion?  What  right  have 
persons  to  restrict  the  meaning  of  the  Apostle’s 
language,  unless  the  scope  of  his  argument  re¬ 
quire' such  restriction?  On  the  subject  of  the 
Atonement,  when  such  universal  terms  are  re¬ 
quired,  by  the  analogy  of  faith,  to  be  restricted, 
these  same  objectors  will  admit  of  no  restriction  : 
But  when  the  Spirit  of  God  asserts,  concerning 
men,  that  “  there  is  none  righteous,  no  not  one;” 

IS 


146 


thrice  repeating  the  negation,  to  put  the  matter 
beyond  the  reach  of  all  dispute,  they  throw  in  their 
restrictions,  although  the  subject  requires  no  re¬ 
striction  !  This  may  justly  be  termed  “  handling 
the  word  of  God  deceitfully.”  But  does  the  Apos¬ 
tle’s  language  require  no  restriction  in  respect  of 
the  strong  negation  which  he  makes  ?  Look,  for 
a  moment,  to  the  nature  of  his  argument.  He  is 
endeavoring  to  convince  the  self-righteous  Jews, 
that  they  were  no  better  than  the  Gentiles  ;  that 
they  also  were  unrighteous  in  the  sight  of  God. 
And  how  does  he  prove  this  ?  Simply,  by  making 
quotations  from  the  book  of  Psalms,  and  that  of 
Isaiah.  But  suppose  a  Jew  had  objected  to  the 
relevancy  of  his  proofs,  saying,  that  they  only  es¬ 
tablished  the  wickedness  of  the  people  who  lived 
in  the  times  of  David  and  Isaiah  ;  how  could  the 
correctness  of  the  Apotle’s  argument  have  been 
defended?  His  argument,  indeed,  would  have 
been  good  for  nothing,  had  it  not  assumed  the 
principle,  that  human  nature,  since  the  fall  of 
Adam,  remains  the  same  in  all  ao-es.  Now,  if 
such  was  the  state  of  human  nature  in  the  days  of 
David  and  Isaiah,  that,  in  consequence  of  it,  men 
became  wicked  and  ungodly  in  their  lives  ;  then,  ' 
human  nature  remaining  the  same,  it  would  be  ac¬ 
companied  with  precisely  the  same  results  in  the 


147 


time  of  the  Apostle.  Hence,  he  reasons  from  the 
condition  of  human  nature,  to  the  condition  of  the 
individuals  of  that  nature.  And  his  argument  is 
entirely  conclusive  ;  for,  the  same  cause  always 
produces  the  same  effects.  What,  then,  must 
have  been  the  condition  of  human  nature  in  the 
times  of  David  and  Isaiah1?  Unholy,  most  as¬ 
suredly  ;  for,  on  the  assumption  that  it  remained 
the  same  in  his  day,  the  Apostle  argues  the  sin¬ 
fulness  of  the  then  existing  people  of  the  Jews. 
When  he,  therefore,  declares,  that  “there  is  none 
righteous,  no  not  one  ;  he  describes  the  true  natu¬ 
ral  condition  of  every  individual  of  mankind,  with¬ 
out  exception,  unless  human  nature  has  changed 
for  the  better,  since  the  writing  of  this  epistle  to 
the  church  at  Rome  ;  a  thing  not  pretended. 
Hence,  men  are  born  into  the  world  destitute  of 
“the  image  of  God.”  For  if  otherwise,  it  would 
not  be  true,  that  “there  is  none  righteous,  no,  not 
one.” 

And  the  same  is  further  evident  from  the  fact, 
that  men  possess  no  innate  propensity  to  love, 
seek,  serve,  or  enjoy  God.  Man,  as  originally 
created,  was  indued  with  such  a  propensity.  His 
being  created  in  “the  likeness  of  God,”  implies 
this.  He  could  not  have  been  pronounced  to  be 
very  good ,  he  could  not  have  been  called  upright , 


148 


he  could  not  have  been  truly  fitted  for  the  super¬ 
natural  work  of  glorifying  his  Creator,  had  such 
a  propensity  of  nature  been  foreign  to  his  moral 
constitution.  Shall  we  suppose  that  all  the  other 
creatures  which  God  made  possessed  a  natural  pro¬ 
pensity  towards  fulfilling  the  various  functions 
allotted  them  by  infinite  wisdom  ?  And  must  we 
deny,  that  there  was  any  propensity  in  man’s  na¬ 
ture  towards  doing  that,  for  which  God,  in  a  very 
peculiar  manner,  created  him,  viz  :  to  glorify  his 
Creator  and  enjoy  him  for  ever?  Indeed,  to  sup¬ 
pose  that  man  was  created  with  no  more  propen¬ 
sity,  or  inclination,  to  serve  God,  than  to  serve  the 
devil,  is  to  argue  a  radical  defect  in  his  creation, 
and  to  cast  reproach  upon  his  Maker.  And  to  as¬ 
sert  that  such  a  propensity  of  nature  in  man,  would 
have  destroyed  the  freedom  of  his  will,  is  as  great 
folly  as  to  assert,  that  God  and  holy  angels,  and 
“the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect,”  do  not 
possess  a  freedom  of  will ;  for,  they  are  wholly 
and  totally  inclined  to  that  which  is  good.  Man, 
however,  was  able  to  counteract  this  propensity  of 
his  nature,  as  his  sinning  against  God  mournfully 
showed. 

But  it  is  entirely  different  with  his  childdren 
from  what  it  was  with  himself.  They  are  born 
into  the  world  destitute  of  any  innate  propensity 


149 


towards  doing  that  which  is  good  and  holy  in  the' 
sight  of  God.  They  possess  a  propensity  the 
very  opposite.  Hence,  the  first  acts,  which  they 
perform  as  moral  agents,  are  sinful  ones.  Thus 
the  bitter  fountain  sends  forth  bitter  streams 
and  the  corrupt  tree  produces  corrupt  fruit.  But 
this  order  would  be  reversed,  had  men,  as  born 
into  the  world,  a  propensity  of  nature  to  good.  In 
that  case  the  sweet  fountain  would  be  issuing  forth 
in  bitter  streams,  and  the  good  tree  would  be  pro¬ 
ducing  corrupt  fruit !  And  that  too,  before  there 
could  be  any  counteraction  of  such  propensity  by 
deliberate  acts  of  moral  agency,  as  happened  in 
the  case  of  our  firsi  parents. 

Besides,  we  read,  that  “  it  repented  the  Lord 
that  he  bad  made  man  upon  the  earth but,  if 
infants,  like  Adam,  possessed  a  propensity  of 
nature  to  good }  if  they  bore  the  image  of  God 
upon  their  souls,  what  more  could  he  require 
of  them  in  their  infantile  state?  Their  relation 
to  the  moral  law  would  bear  precisely  the  same 
aspect  as  Adam’s  when  he  was  created  ;  and  ac¬ 
cordingly  he  would  call  them  “  very  good,”  and 
would  delight  in  them,  for,  “  the  righteous  Lord 
loveth  righteousness,  and  his  countenance  doth 
behold  the  upright,”  and  it  would  not  “grieve 
him  at  the  heart,”  that  he  had  made  them  upon 

13* 


150 

the  earth.  But,  when  it  is  said  without  any  limi¬ 
tation,  that  “it  repented  the  Lord  that  he  had 
made  man  upon  the  earth,”  and  that  “  it  grieved 
him  at  the  heart,”  we  must  infer,  that  all ,  even 
infants ,  are  destitute  of  all  such  propensity  of  na¬ 
ture  to  love,  serve  and  enjoy  God,  as  Adam  re¬ 
ceived  in  his  creation  ;  especially  since  it  is  writ¬ 
ten  of  fallen  man,  without  any  restriction,  that 
‘ 1  every  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart 
is  evil  continually.”  And  notice  here,  it  is  not 
said,  that  his  heart  simply,  is  evil,  or  even  the 
thoughts  of  his  heart,  but  the  very  imagination , 
the  first  rise ,  formation ,  or  budding  forth  of  the 
thoughts  of  his  heart  is  evil.  This  surely  be¬ 
speaks  a  constitutional  proneness  to  evil,  or  at 
least  a  want  of  the  opposite  principle,  a  propensity 
to  good. 

Thus  we  have  proved,  that  a  radical  change  has 
taken  place  in  the  original  principles  of  man’s 
moral  constitution — that  the  “image  of  God,”  in 
which  he  was,  at  first,  created,  has  been  lost,  and 
with  it,  all  propensity  of  nature  to  “glorify  and 
enjoy  God  ;”  and  that  this  is  the  case  with  all  the 
descendants  of  Adam  as  they  come  into  our  world. 
Now,  it  must  be  confessed,  that  this  is  truly  an 
inconceivable  loss,  an  unspeakable  evil.  And  how 
is  it  to  be  accounted  for  ?  This  is  the  grand 


151 


query.  We  unhesitatingly  affirm,  that  it  must  be 
accounted  for,  in  one  of  two  ways — either,  has 
God  inflicted  this  evil  on  man,  in  the  way  of  mere 
sovereignty ,  or,  in  the  way  of  righteous  retribution . 

But  God  never  exercises  his  sovereignty,  but  in 
consistency  with  the  perfections  of  his  nature. 
Would  it,  then,  be  consistent  with  infinite  good¬ 
ness,  holiness,  justice  and  truth,  to  deprive  inno¬ 
cent ,  unoffending  creatures  of  that  divine  image, 
which  he  had  originally  enstamped  upon  their  na¬ 
ture,  and  thus  visit  them  with  such  a  great  and 
unutterable  loss  ?  We  cannot  think  so.  Indeed, 
would  not  such  a  procedure,  on  the  part  of  Jeho¬ 
vah,  savor  strongly  of  tyranny  and  oppression, 
when  it  is  recollected,  that  he  still  requires  of 
man,  that  he  possess  this  image,  and  that  he  per¬ 
form  works,  which  never  can  be  performed  without 
its  possession'?  A  sovereign  deprivation  of  this 
image,  then,  cannot  be  maintained,  without  dis¬ 
torting  those  views  of  God’s  moral  character, 
which  the  Scriptures  present  to  us.  Hence  we 
are  obliged  to  contend,  that  our  loss  of  the  “image 
of  God”  proceeds  from  an  act  of  vindicative  or  * 
retributive  justice,  on  the  part  of  Jehovah  ;  orf  in 
other  words,  that  this  loss  happens  to  men  as  a 
punishment  for  sin.  In  this  matter,  therefore,  the 
sufferers  are  not  regarded  as  innocent ,  but  as  guilty . 


152 


But  since  this  loss  is  sustained  by  them,  as  Imu 
been  proved,  before  they  are  chargeable  with  any 
personal  ill-desert  of  their  own,  it  follows,  that 
God  deals  with  them  on  the  ground  of  the  sin  of 
their  representative,  Adam.  Having  imputed  his 
sin  to  them,  as  a  righteous  Lord  and  Judge,  he 
does,  on  account  of  that  sin  thus  imputed,  punish 
them  with  the  deprivation  of  his  own  divine  image* 
And,  hence,  the  wTant  of  this  image  in  man  is  both 
his  sin  and  his  punishment — his  sin,  *  as  he  wants 
that  which  the  law  of  God  requires  in  all  its  sub¬ 
jects — his  ’punishment ,  as  he  wants  that,  without 
which  he  cannot  be  happy,  yea,  the  very  want  of 
which  renders  him  truly  miserable. 

*  Regeneration,  as  we  have  seen,  supposes  the  loss  of  the 
image  of  God;  and  the  great  object  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the 
work  of  regeneration,  as  Dr.  Witherspoon  truly  observes,  is  to 
restore  to  the  soul  the  lost  image  of  God.  But  regeneration  is 
required  of  us  by  the  law  of  God ;  that  is,  the  divine  law  re¬ 
quires  that  we  recover  again  the  image  of  God  which  we  have 
lost.  Its  loss,  therefore,  is  our  sin,  otherwise  we  might  remain 
unregenerate  and  destitute  of  God’s  image,  and  thus  resist  the 
demands  of  the  divine  law,  without  sin,  which  is  absurd.  In¬ 
deed,  if  the  law  requires  that  we  be  found  in  possession  of  the 
image  of  God,  it  is  self-evident,  that  the  want  of  that  image  is 
sinful.  But  the  law  actually  puts  forth  such  a  requirement,  as 
appears  from  the  following  scriptures— “  Make  you  a  new  heart 
and  a  new  spirit” — “Be  ye  transformed  by  the  renewing  of  your 
mind” — “Be  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  your  mind” — “  Put  on  the 
new  man,  which  after  God  is  created  in  righteousness  and  true 
holiness.”  &c. 


153 


Sec.  2. — From  the  Innate  Corruption  of  Human 

Nature* 

The  innate  corruption  or  depravity  of  human 
nature  proves  the  imputation  of  Adam’s  first  sin 
to  his  posterity.  Human  nature  as  it  exists  in 
every  individual  of  Adam’s  family,  both  old  and 
young,  is  not  only  destitute  of  the  “image  of 
God,”  but  is,  also,  positively  corrupt.  This  cor¬ 
ruption  of  nature  as  necessarily  follows  the  loss  of 
the  divine  image  from  our  souls,  as  darkness  fol- 
lows  the  withdrawment  of  light.  Now,  by  this 
corruption,  we  do  not  mean,  that  any  of  the  origi¬ 
nal  faculties  of  the  soul  are  destroyed.  All  these 
still  remain.  The  soul  is  still  capable  of  thinking , 
and  judging ,  and  willing ,  and  feeling.  We  only 
mean,  that  all  its  faculties  are  in  a  depraved  condi¬ 
tion,  in  a  disordered  state,  and  are  unfitted  for  an¬ 
swering  the  primitive  purpose  of  knowing,  loving, 
serving  and  enjoying  God.  Nor  do  we  mean,  that 
any  positive  substance  of  a  malignant  and  poisonous 
nature  is  infused  into  the  soul,  as  the  cause  of  the 
corruption  of  its  faculties.  The  dead  body  needs 
nothing  to  be  infused  into  it  to  cause  its  putrifac- 
tion.  The  absence  of  life  is  enough  to  produce 
this  consequence.  So  it  is  here ;  the  want  of 
light  and  holiness  in  the  soul  is  sufficient  to  pro- 


154 


duce  a  universal  corruption  of  all  its  faculties. 
But  although  this  corruption  be  negatively  pro¬ 
duced,  it  is  nevertheless  positive  and  real  ;  as 
much  so,  as  there  is  positively  and  really  darkness 
in  the  place  from  which  all  light  is  excluded  ;  or, 
as  there  is  positively  and  really  coldness,  where 
all  heat  is  excluded.  We  are  not,  then,  to  be 
charged  with  holding  to  a  physical  depravity,  if 
by  that  expression  be  meant  a  change  in  the  es¬ 
sence  of  the  soul.  For  we  contend  that  the  soul 
still  retains  all  the  faculties  that  ever  it  had  ;  only 
that  these  exist  in  such  a  corrupt  and  disordered 
state,  as  totally  disqualifies  them  for  the  perform¬ 
ance  of  spiritual  and  holy  exercises. 

Now,  is  man’s  moral  nature  thus  depraved  l 
Are  the  faculties  of  his  soul  thus  corrupted  ?  Even 
the  regenerated  sinner,  the  saint  of  God,  is  not  a 
stranger  to  this  moral  corruption.  For  in  him 
“  the  flesh  lusteth  against  the  spirit,  and  the  spirit, 
against  the  flesh  ;  and  these  two  are  contrary  the 
one  to  the  other ;  so  that  he  cannot  do  the  things 
that  he  would.”  Gal.  v.  17.  The  holy  Apostle 
Paul,  relates  his  own  experience,  when  he  says, 
“  I  see  another  law  in  my  members,  warring 
against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bringing  me  into 
captivity  to  the  law  of  sin,  which  is  in  my  mem¬ 
bers.  O  wretched  man,  that  I  am !  who  shall  de- 


155 

liver  me  from  the  body  of  this  death?”  Rom.  vii. 
23,  24.  And  if  this  eminent  saint  was  thus  op¬ 
pressed  in  spirit  under  a  sense  of  the  corruption  of 
his  nature,  who  can  lay  his  hand  on  his  heart  and 
say,  “I  am  clean?”  But  the  Scriptures,  in  di¬ 
verse  places,  do  most  explicitly  teach  us  the  entire 
corruption  of  human  nature .  “  God  saw  that  the 

wickedness  of  man  was  great  in  the  earth,  and 
that  every  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart 
was  only  evil  continually.”  Gen.  vi.  5.  “The 
fool  hath  said  in  his  heart.  There  is  no  God. 
They  are  corrupt;  they  have  done  abominable 
works  ;  there  is  none  that  doeth  good,”  &tc.  Ps. 
xiv.  “The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things, 
and  desperately  wicked ;  who  can  know  it?”  Jer. 
xvii.  9.  “  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against 

God  ;  for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  nei¬ 
ther  indeed  can  be.”  Rom.  viii.  7.  “From  with¬ 
in,  out  of  the  heart  of  man,  proceed  evil  thoughts, 
adulteries,  fornications,  murders,  thefts,  covetous¬ 
ness,  wickedness,  deceit,  lasciviousness,  an  evil 
eye,  blasphemy,  pride,  foolishness  ;  all  these  evil 
things  come  from  within,  and  defile  the  man.” 
Mark  vii.  21 — 23.  Men,  before  regeneration,  are 
described  as  being  “  dead  in  tresspasses  and  sins,” 
as  “  walking  according  to  the  course  of  this 
world,  according  to  the  prince  of  the  power  of  the 


156 


air,  the  spirit  that  now  worketh  in  the  children  of 
disobedience  :”  as  “  having  their  conversation  in 
the  lusts  of  the  flesh,  fulfilling  the  desires  of  the 
flesh,  and  of  the  mind  and  as  “being  by  nature 
the  children  of  wrath  even  as  others.”  Eph.  ii. 
1 — 3.  Indeed,  the  Scriptures  assure  us,  that  all 
the  faculties  of  the  soul  of  man  are  corrupted. 
His  conscience  is  defiled;  his  understanding  is 
darkened ;  his  will  is  perverted ,  for  it  is  written, 
that  “the  heart  [the  will]  of  the  sons  of  men  is 
fully  set  in  them  to  do  evil  •”  and  his  affections  are 
disordered  and  misplaced ,  “  set  on  things  below,” 
so  that  he  loves  what  he  should  hate,  and  hates 
what  he  should  love.  Such,  then,  is  the  language 
which  the  Scriptures  speak  in  relation  to  the  moral 
corruption  of  man. 

But  it  may  be  said,  that  all  this  proves  nothing, 
unless  it  can  be  shown  that  this  corruption  belongs 
to  infants  as  soon  as  born.  Be  it  so.  Their  cor¬ 
ruption  or  depravity  is  susceptible  of  the  clearest 
proof,  if  the  authority  of  the  Bible  be  admitted, 
and  its  declarations  be  received  without  perver¬ 
sion.  All  must  acknowledge,  that  immediately 
upon  his  first  transgression,  Adam’s  moral  nature 
became  corrupted.  Now,  revelation  informs  us, 
that  “  he  begat  a  son  in  his  own  image  and  like- 
ness.”  It  surely  follows,  then,  that  this  son 


157 


(Seth)  was  born  into  the  world  in  possession  of 
a  morally  corrupted  nature  ;  if  otherwise,  it  would 
not  be  true,  that  he  was  begotten  in  “  the  image 
and  likeness”  of  his  corrupt  and  sinful  father.  But 
as  it  happened  in  the  case  of  Seth,  so  it  happens 
in  the  case  of  all  the  children  of  Adam.  For, 
“  who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean? 
Notone.”  (Job.xiv.  4.)  “How  can  he  be  clean  that 
is  born  of  a  woman?”  (Job.xxv.  4.)  To  be  born  with 
a  nature  morally  clean  can,  therefore,  belong  to 
none  of  the  descendants  of  Adam.  God  has  ordained 
it  otherwise.  And  hence  says  David,  the  man  af¬ 
ter  God’s  own  heart,  “Behold  I  was  shapen  in 
iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me.” 
(Ps.  li.  5.)  Some  indeed  tell  us,  that  we  must  not 
interpret  David’s  language  literally,  that  we  must 
not  “  cut  it  to  the  quick,”  as  he  only  means  to 
say,  that  he  was  a  sinner  very  early,  even  as  soon 
as  he  was  capable  of  committing  actual  sin.  If 
this  be  his  meaning,  why  did  he  not  tell  us  so  him¬ 
self?  Surely  it  is  taking  a  very  unwarranted  lib¬ 
erty  with  his  language,  which  was  indited  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  which  declares,  that  he  was  sinful 
and  polluted  from  his  very  birth,  to  tell  us  that  it 
only  means,  that  he  made  himself  sinful  and  po- 
luted  some  months  or  years  afterwards.  David  is 
speaking  of  sinful  principles,  and  not  of  sinful  acts* 

14 


158 


And  although,  in  the  latter  respect,  he  was  not  a! 
sinner  from  the  womb,  in  the  former  respect  he 
was ;  otherwise  he  was  guilty  of  uttering  a  vile 
slander  against  himself.  Why  is  it  recorded  with  a 
peculiar  emphasis,  concerning  the  glorious  Son  of 
David,  that  he  was  born  holy,  (Luke  i.  35.*)  un- 


*  The  above  declaration  of  Scripture  respecting  the  human  na¬ 
ture  of  Christ  is  worthy  of  very  special  consideration ;  because 
it  contains  a  most  triumphant  refutation  of  some  erroneous  po¬ 
sitions,  taken  by  the  doctors  and  disciples  of  the  New-Haven 
School,  as,  that  “holiness  or  unholiness  cannot  be  predicated  of 
a  nature,”  and  that,  “  there  is  no  difference,  in  a  moral  point  of 
view,  between  infants  in  their  birth  and  the  man  Christ  Jesus 
in  his.”  The  angel  Gabriel  said  to  Mary — “The  Holy  Ghost 
shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  over¬ 
shadow  thee  v  therefore,  also,  that  holy  thing ,  which  shall  be  born 
of  thee,  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God.”  Now,  what  was  that 
holy  thing ,  which  was  conceived  in  the  womb  of  the  virgin 
Mary  and  born  of  her?  Was  it  the  divine ,  or  the  human  nature 
of  Christ?  The  latter,  as  our  opponents  themselves  must  admit. 
Then,  the  human  nature  of  Christ  was  born  holy.  We  acknow¬ 
ledge,  that  by  reason  of  the  hypostatic  union  of  the  two  natures, 
the  person  born  was  holy ;  yet  it  was  not  in  his  divine  but  human 
nature  that  this  holy  person  was  born.  Any  assertion  to  the 
contrary  must  involve  the  grossest  confusion  of  ideas,  if  not 
blasphemy.  Accordingly,  there  can  be  no  consistent  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  this  text  other  than  that,  which  maintains  the  inborn 
holiness  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ.  And  if  any  emotion  of 
wonder  rise  up  in  the  soul  from  the  fact  that  a  holy  human  nature 
should  be  formed  of  the  substance  and  born  of  a  sinful  woman, 
the  text  referred  to  dispels  the  cause  of  such  emotion,  by  assur¬ 
ing  us,  that  that  nature  was  formed  and  purified  by  the  over- 


159 


less  that  a  perfect  contrast  might  appear  between 
what  he  was  in  his  birth,  and  what  his  father  David 


shadowing  power  and  influence  of  the  Holy  G host.  This  is  the 
reason,  a  supernatural  reason  indeed,  why  that  which  was  born 
of  the  virgin  was  a  holy  thing. 

What  then  becomes  of  the  assertions — that  holiness  cannot  be 
predicated  of  a  nature  ?  and  that  Christ  was  born  with  a  nature 
neither  holy  nor  unholy?  If  a  person  started  out  with  the  full 
determination  to  contradict  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  cannot  see  how 
he  could  do  so  more  palpably  than  by  making  such  assertions. 
But  if  human  nature  was  holy  in  the  person  of  Christ  at  his 
birth,  why  may  not  human  nature  be  unholy  in  us  at  our  birth  ? 
it  is  surely  as  easy  to  predicate  unholiness  as  holiness  of  a  nature. 
David  thought  so,  when  he  confessed — “  Behold,  I  was  shapen  in 
iniquity;  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me.”  And  Job 
thought  so,  when  he  asked  the  question  and  answered  it — “  Who 
can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  unclean  ?  Not  one  ?” 

Sound  divines,  whose  labors  have  edified  and  comforted  the 
church  of  God,  have  uniformly  maintained,  that  the  holiness  of 
Christ’s  human  nature  formed  a  part  of  his  justifying  righteous¬ 
ness,  and  was  necessary  on  account  of  the  sinful  corruption  of 
ours.  The  law  finds  us  in  possession  of  a  sinful  nature,  but  it 
found  him  in  possession  of  a  holy  one.  He  was  no  sooner  made 
of  a  woman  than  he  was  made  under  the  law ;  and  he  met  that 
law  with  a  holy  nature  and  thus  fulfilled  its  righteousness  in  that 
important  point. 

From  the  foregoing  considerations,  then,  it  follows,  in  despite 
of  all  the  sneers  and  cavils  of  a  vain  philosophy,  that  the  qualities 
of  a  nature  are  as  cognizable  by  the  law  of  God,  as  the  qualities 
of  an  act.  But  let.  not  our  meaning  be  perverted,  as  though  we 
were  speaking  of  a  physical  and  not  of  a  moral  nature.  Man 
viewed  as  a  creature  possesses  a  physical  nature ;  and  viewed  as 
a  subject  of  God’s  moral  government  he  possesses  a  moral  pa- 


100 


was  in  his,  and  what  all  the  children  of  Adam  are 
in  theirs  1 

But  how  conies  it  to  pass,  that  the  very  first  acts 
performed  by  children,  after  they  have  attained  to 
what  is  called  the  period  of  moral  agency,  are  uni¬ 
versally  sinful  acts?  Nobody  pretends  that  there 
was  ever  a  solitary  exception  to  this ;  and  yet  it  is 
pretended  that  the  moral  nature  of  infants  is  in  no 
respect  corrupted  !  This  is  infinitely  absurd. 


ture.  We  predicate  neither  sin  nor  holiness  of  his  physical  na¬ 
ture  5  it  is  his  moral  nature  only  that  is  a  proper  subject  of  such 
predication.  And  we  contend,  from  the  word  of  God,  that  the 
moral  nature  of  every  human  being  as  born  into  the  world,  is 
corrupt ,  and  consequently  at  variance  with  the  requirement  of 
the  divine  law,  whose  unceasing  and  unalterable  demand  is,  that 
every  son  and  daughter  of  Adam  should  possess  the  same  holy 
and  uncorrupted  nature,  that  was  given  to  him  in  his  creation. 
But  this  demand  of  the  law  has  never  been  fulfilled,  except  in 
the  case  of  our  adorable  Surety  as  born  in  our  nature  ;  to  which 
fact,  as  “  a  new  thing  in  the  earth,”  Inspiration  points  the  finger 
of  admiration,  saying — “  That  Holy  Thing ,  which  shall  be  born 
of  thee,  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God.”  Hence,  as  to  the  as¬ 
sertion,  that  human  nature  in  the  case  of  infants  is,  morally 
speaking,  precisely  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  “  the  holy  child 
Jesus,”  we  have  only  to  say,  that  it  has  been  made  foolishly  and 
thoughtlessly,  if  not  blasphemously.  For  if  there  be,  in  the 
whole  Bible,  a  contrast  plain,  obvious  and  palpable,  it  is  that 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  draws-between  the  moral  character  of  our 
Saviour  in  his  birth,  and  the  moral  character  of  all  Adam’s  children 
in  theirs.  He  was  horn  a  holy  thing — They  are  “  shapen  jjg 
iniquity  and  conceived  in  sin.” 


161 


What?  Does  the  sweet  fountain  universally  send 
forth  bitter  streams?  Does  the  good  tree  univer- 
sally  produce  corrupt  fruit  ? 

Besides,  did  not  the  rite  of  ciicumcision,  under 
the  law,  point  to  the  corruption  of  infants  ?  Was 
not  the  thing  sacramentally  represented  by  it,  a 
change  of  heart  ?  It  was  said  to  Israel,  “The 
Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thine  heart  and  the 
heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with 
all  thine  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  that  thou 
mayest  live.”  (Deut.  xxx.  6.)  Now,  if  the  circum¬ 
cision  of  the  flesh  represented  the  circumcision 
of  tire  heart,  infants,  if  holy,  would  have  been 
improper  subjects  of  that  rite.  In  their  case,  it 
could  have  represented  no  spiritual  benefit.  The 
outward  circumcision  of  their  flesh,  therefore, 
proved  their  need  of  an  internal  and  spiritual  cir¬ 
cumcision  of  the  heart.  And  lienee,  the  promise 
of  this  blessing  pertained  to  them  equally  with 
their  fathers.  “The  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise 
thine  heart,  and  the  heart  of  thy  seed.” 

An  I  under  the  New  Testament  dispensation,  the 
ordinance  of  baptism  proves  the  same  thing.  This 
ordinance  has  a  primary  respect  to  pollution. — 
Hence,  in  allusion  to  the  outward  sio-n,  the  bless- 
ing  signified  is  called  “the  washing  of  reo-enera- 

O  O  O  o 

tion.”  Now,  if  it  be  not  true  that  infants  need  “  frhe 

14* 


162 


washing  of  regeneration,’'  need  a  real  change  of 
heart,  their  baptism  must  be  a  solemn  mockery. 
With  the  same  propriety  you  might  baptize  angels. 
And  this  incongruity  actually  takes  place  in  the 
case  of  those  who  baptize  infants  under  the  false 
impression,  that  they  are  u  little  angels,”  or  pure 
as  angels.  And  an  incongruity  equally  disgusting 
takes  place  in  the  case  of  those  who  baptize  infants 
under  the  absurd  belief,  that  they  are  neither  holy, 
nor  unholy,  but  like  the  irrational  creation !  Such 
might,  with  equal  propriety,  as  far  as  themselves 
are  concerned,  administer  that  holy  ordinance  to 
the  fowls  of  the  air,  or  the  beasts  of  the  field  ! 
And,  by  the  way,  according  to  this  Pelagian  no¬ 
tion,  what  must  become  of  those  human  beings 
who  die  in  a  state  of  infancy  ?  Not  being  holy , 
they  cannot  be  admitted  into  heaven  :  And  not  be¬ 
ing  unholy ,  they  cannot  be  sent  to  hell !  The  por¬ 
tion  of  brutes  must,  therefore,  be  their  portion ! 
Let  those  who  ccm,  believe  a  conclusion  so  abhor¬ 
rent  both  to  Scripture  and  reason.  And  if  none 
are  found  willing  to  embrace  the  conclusion,  then 
let  them  reject,  with  a  becoming  indignation,  the 
premises  from  which  it  is  legitimately  drawn. 

The  foregoing  considerations,  then,  fully  es¬ 
tablish  the  moral  corruption  of  human  nature  in 
infants.  It  only  remains,  now,  to  complete  the 


163 


argument,  to  show  how  this  corruption  takes  place, 
how  this  evil  comes  to  be  visited  upon  all  the  seed 
of  Adam  ?  And  here  we  need  only  remark,  as  be¬ 
fore,  in  relation  to  the  loss  of  “the  image  of  God,” 
that  this  painful  and  highly  calamitous  dispensa 
tion,  has  not  been  introduced  by  a  mere  act  of  ab¬ 
solute  sovereignty ,  but  by  an  act  of  a  righteous 
Judge,  duly  inflicting  punishment  upon  the  ill-de¬ 
serving But  as  infants  are  not  ill-deserving ,  per¬ 
sonally  considered,  they  must  be  regarded  in  law, 
as  having  the  sin  of  their  representative  charged  to 
their  account ,  and,  therefore,  obnoxious  to  the  en¬ 
durance  of  such  a  punishment.  And  here  it  may 
also  be  remarked,  that  this  corruption  of  nature  is 
to  be  regarded  both  as  a  sin ,  and  as  the  punishment 
of  sin.  It  is  a  sin,  as  it  is  a  want  of  conformity 
to  the  law  of  God ;  and  it  is  the  punishment  of  sin, 
as  it  is  an  evil  inflicted  by  a  judge  in  the  due  exer¬ 
cise  of  justice.  In  the  latter  sense,  it  is  to  be 
viewed  as  coming  immediately  from  the  hand  of 
God,  but  in  the  former,  as  conveyed  from  father  to 
son,  in  the  propagation  of  the  human  family. 

Nor  are  we,  in  this,  to  be  understood  as  main¬ 
taining,  either  that  God'  is  the  author  of  sin,  or 
that  parents  are  capable  of  giving  existence  to  a 
sinful  being.  The  human  body,  of  itself,  is  not 
an  appropriate  subject  either  of  holiness  or  de- 


164 


pravity.  Holiness  or  depravity  cannot  be  predi¬ 
cated  of  mere  flesh  and  bones.  The  soul  is  es¬ 
sential  to  the  constitution  of  a  moral  agent.  The 
union  of  soul  and  body,  in  a  human  being,  consti¬ 
tutes  such  an  agent.  But  God  is  “the  Father  of 
spirits  ;”  he  is  the  immediate  creator  of  the  soul, 
and  he  infuses  it  into  a  human  body,  instrumentally 
prepared  by  parents  for  its  reception.  The  soul, 
however,  is  created  destitute  of  its  original  glory  ; 
“the  image  of  God” — destitute  of  “knowledge, 
righteousness,  and  holiness.”  This  destitution  is 
the  negative  cause  of  corruption,  as  the  destitution 
of  light  is  necessarily  accompanied  with  darkness. 
And  the  union  of  such  a  soul  with  a  material  body, 
gives  existence  to  a  human  being  of  a  corrupt  moral 
constitution.  So  far,  therefore,  as  God  is  immedi¬ 
ately  concerned  in  the  production  of  such  a  being,  he 
acts  righteously — acting  in  the  character  of  a  Judge, 
he  only  withholds  what  he  would  have  bestowed, 
had  the  representative  of  the  human  race  fulfilled 
the  condition  of  the  original  covenant.  The  evil, 
then,  of  our  being  born  with  a  corrupt  nature  is  to 
be  charged  to  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  to  that  sin  as 
imputed  to  us,  otherwise  it  could  not  be  attended 
with  such  a  punitive  consequence.  And  human 
procreation  is  the  divinely  established  mode ,  by 
which  this  punishment  comes  to  be  endured,  this 


165 


corrupt  nature  to  be  transmitted.  Indeed,  the 
mere  fact  of  parents  being  sinful,  does  not  neces¬ 
sarily  imply  that  their  progeny  must  also  be  sinful. 

t 

God  could  have  ordered  it  otherwise.  He  could, 
by  the  infusion  of  a  holy  soul,  have  sanctified  the 
propagated  body.  But  he  has  constituted  this 
matter  differently.  Hence,  we  must  regard  the 
procreation  of  the  species  as  being  the  medium , 
which  God  has  established  for  conveying  this  penal 
and  sinful  corruption  of  nature  down  to  the  last  of 
the  represented  posterity  of  Adam. 


1GG 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  SAME  SUBJECT  CONTINUED. 

Sec.  1. — The  Doctrine  Proved  from  the  Inability 
of  Adam's  Descendants  to  keep  the  Command¬ 
ments  of  God. 

The  imputation  of  Adam’s  first  sin  to  his  pos¬ 
terity  is  manifest  from  their  innate  and  total  ina¬ 
bility  to  obey  the  commandments  of  God.  This 
argument  is  of  the  same  nature  with’  the  last  two. 
It  cannot  be  denied,  that  man  was  originally  crea¬ 
ted  with  a  sufficient  ability  to  do  whatever  God  re- 
,  quired  of  him.  But  if  men  are  now  born  into  the 
world  under  an  utter  inability  to  perform  the  re¬ 
quirements  of  the  divine  law,  it  follows,  that  hu¬ 
man  nature  has  undergone  an  awful  change — has 
suffered  a  dreadful  loss.  And  as  it  would  be  an 
injurious  reflection  on  the  character  of  Jehovah,  to 
refer  this  to  a  mere  act  of  his  sovereign  will,  it 
must  have  taken  place  in  pursuance  of  an  act  of 
justice ;  and  hence  the  imputation  of  Adam’s  sin 
to  his  posterity,  is  established.  To  complete  the 
argument,  therefore,  we  have  only  to  prove  the 
existence  of  the  inability  alluded  to.  And  as  much 
metaphysical  dust  has  been  blown  upon  this  sub¬ 
ject,  it  may  be  proper,  in  the  first  place,  to  brush  it 
away. 


1(57 


A  distinction,  not  only  ambiguous  but  wholly 
inapplicable,  is  made  here  between  natural  and 
moral  inability  :*  And  it  is  contended,  that  only 


*  “  The  learned  Amyraldus,  did  no  service  to  the  cause  of  the 
reformation  by  his  distinction  between  a  physical  and  moral  • 
power  of  believing  in  Christ.  He  supposed  the  sinner  to  have 
the  former,  but  not  the  latter.  He  held,  that  Christ  died  for  all 
men  according  to  a  decree  of  God,  by  which  salvation  was  se¬ 
cured  to  sinners  upon  condition  of  their  faith;  which  general 
decree,  according  to  him,  was  to  be  considered  as  going  before 
the  particular  decree,  about  giving  faith  to  the  elect.  When  it 
was  objected  to  him,  that  his  notion  of  the  general  decree  now 
mentioned  was  absurd,  as  it  suspended  the  end  of  Christ’s  death 
upon  an  impossible  condition; — he  denied,  that  the  condition 
was  impossible.  “For,”  said  he,  “though  I  do  not,  with  the 
Arminians,  deny  the  impotence  of  fallen  man,  or  his  inability 
to  believe,  (I  allow  him  to  be  morally  impotent;)  yet  I  hold  that 
man  has  still  a  physical  or  natural  power  of  believing;  as  he 
possesses  the  natural  faculties  of  the  understanding  and  the  will. 
Herein  Amyraldus  has  given  a  sad  example  of  the  abuse  of  great 
parts.  Shall  we  suppose,  that  when  Christ  undertook  for  sin¬ 
ners  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  he  considered  them  any  otherwise 
than  as  most  miserable,  lost,  dead  in  sin,  utterly  impotent, 
(Rom.  v.  7,  8.  viii.  3,)  or  that  the  wisdom  of  God  gave  Christ  to 
die  for  this  end,  that  sinners  might  attain  salvation  by  a  natural 
power  of  believing  ;  a  power,  which,  Amyraldus  confesses, 
could  never  be  exerted  ?  Farther*  is  not  faith  a  most  holy  and 
moral  act,  and,  as  it  takes  place  in  the  sinner,  purely  supernatu¬ 
ral?  and  shall  we  allow,  that  a  principle  which  is  not  moral,  but 
merely  physical,  can  be  productive  of  such  a  moral  and  super¬ 
natural  act?  Ought  not  an  act  and  its  principle  to  correspond 
with  one  another?  Let  the  same  thing  be  said  of  love,  which 
Amyraldus  has  said  of  faith,  and  the  Pelagians  will  triumph ; 


the  latter  belongs  to  fallen  man  ;  that  he  still  pos¬ 
sesses  the  former ,  a  natural  ability  to  do  all  that 
God’s  law  requires.  Yes,  it  is  the  unceasing  cry 
of  certain  theologians,  that  every  child  of  Adam 
is  naturally  able ,  though  morally  unable ,  to  keep 
the  commandments  of  God.  But  what  do  they 
mean  by  a  natural  or  physical  ability,  for  they  use 
these  terms  synonymously?  Do  they  mean  that 


who  used  to  speak  so  much  about  a  natural  faculty  of  loving  God 
above  all  things.  Indeed  upon  this  scheme,  there  will  be  no 
keeping  out  of  the  Pelagian  opinion  about  the  powers  of  pure 
nature ,  and  about  physical  or  natural  faculties  in  man  of  doing 
what  is  morally  good.  For,  in  confuting  that  opinion,  our  Di¬ 
vines  still  maintained,  that  the  image  of  God  was  requisite  in 
the  first  man,  in  order  to  his  exerting  such  morally  good  acts  as 
those  of  loving  and  seeking  true  blessedness  in  the  enjoyment  of 
him.  But  Amyraldus  overthrows  this  doctrine,  while  he  is  led, 
by  the  distinction  he  makes  between  natural  and  moral  power, 
to  hold,  that  the  conception  of  man’s  rational  nature  necessarily 
includes  in  it  a  power  of  exerting  acts  morally  good,  such  as  those 
of  desiring  and  endeavoring  to  obtain  the  restoration  of  com¬ 
munion  with  the  infinitely  holy  and.blessed  God.  The  tendency  of 
this  scheme  became  more  manifest,  when  Pajonius,  a  disciple  of 
Amyraldus,  began  to  deny  the  necessity  of  the  Spirit’s  work  in 
the  internal  illumination  of  sinners,  in  order  to  their  saving  con¬ 
version.  For,  said  Pajonius,  nothing  more  is  necessary  to  that 
eqd,  than  that  the  understanding,  which  has  in  itself  a  sufficiency 
of  clear  ideas,  (according  to  the  language  of  the  Cartesian  Phi¬ 
losophy  then  in  vogue,)  should  only  be  struck  by  the  light  of  ex¬ 
ternal  revelation,  as  the  eye  is  struck  by  the  rays  of  light  coming 
from  a  luminous  object.”— Lcydecker  de  Veritate  Religionis  Re - 
formatx  cl  Evangeliccc,  Lib.  u.  Chap.  6.  Sect.  82. 


169 


power  in  man,  by  which  he  is  able  to  perform  bodily 
acts ,  such  as  ivalking ,  running ,  &tc.  ?  Then,  what 
has  this  to  do  on  a  point  which  relates  exclusively 
to  mental  acts ,  such  as  knowing  and  loving  God , 
believing ,  repenting ,  &c.  ?  What  information 
can  an  inquirer  receive,  when  asking  whether  a 
sinner  be  able  to  know  and  love  God,  to  be  told, 
that  he  is  able ;  because  he  can  run  and  laugh ,  and 
perform  a  great  variety  of  mechanical  operations  ? 
Or  do  they  simply  mean,  by  employing  this  term, 
that  man  still  possesses  all  the  original  faculties  of 
the  soul;  that  he  has  an  understanding,  a  will,  a  con¬ 
science,  &c .?  But  what  has  this  to  do  with  the  ques¬ 
tion  respecting  the  exercise  of  those  faculties  in  a 
holy  and  spiritual  manner  f  If  I  ask,  can  I  exercise 
my  understanding  in  a  holy  manner,  must  I  be  in¬ 
sulted  with  the  answer— Yes,  because  you  possess 
the  faculty  of  understanding?  So  may  an  old  clock 
possess  all  the  faculties  for  keeping  time,  and  yet 
not  be  able  to  keep  time,  on  account  of  the  dis¬ 
ordered  and  rusted  condition  of  those  faculties. 
Or  do  they  only  mean  by  their  natural  ability ,  that 
the  soul  is  able  to  perform  natural  acts ,  that  it  can 
think, und  j udge,  and  will,  and  love,  in  a  natural  way? 
Still  what  has  this  to  do  with  the  question  respect¬ 
ing  its  ability  to  perform  moral  and  spiritual  acts  ? 
Js  it  not  offering  an  insult  to  the  inquirer,  who 

1^ 


170 


asks,  whether  he  be  able  of  himself  to  perform 
such  moral  acts,  as  knowing ,  believing  in ,  and  lov¬ 
ing  God,  to  be  told — O  yes,  for  you  can  demon¬ 
strate  a  mathematical  proposition,  and  you  can 
love  natural  objects,  and  you  can  perform  a  thou¬ 
sand  other  mental  operations  of  a  natural  kind  ? 
Thus  natural  and  spiritual  acts  are  confounded  ; 
and  because  we  can  perform  the  one,  it  is  taken 
for  granted  that  we  can  perform  the  other.  But 
after  all,  perhaps,  those  who  harp  on  this  ambigu¬ 
ous  term,  are  only  to  be  understood  as  maintain¬ 
ing,  that  men  are  by  nature  or  birth ,  able  to  do  all 
that  God  requires  in  his  law,  as  they  are  said  to  be 
by  nature  or  naturally ,  that  is  by  birth,  “the  chil¬ 
dren  of  wrath.”  If  this  be  their  meaning,  the 
sentiment  is  false,  for  in  this  sense  of  the  term,  men 
are  naturally  unable  to  observe  God’s  law,  as  can  be 
easily  shown.  Or,  it  may  be,  that  they  simply  in¬ 
tend,  by  the  use  of  this  term,  to  assert,  that  there 
is  no  defect  about  the  faculties  of  the  soul  to  hinder 
their  spiritual  exercise.  But  if  this  be  their  mean¬ 
ing,  truth  compels  us  to  take  the  opposite  ground, 
and  to  maintain  a  natural  inability.  For  although 
men  do  still  possess  all  the  original  faculties  of 
soul,  it  is  not  true  that  these  exist  without  any  de¬ 
fect  as  to  their  moral  operations.  A  man  may 
possess  all  his  bodily  members,  and  yet  they  may 


171 


be  sadly  defective,  as  to  any  appropriate  exercise 
of  them.  His  feet  may  be  impotent,  his  arms  may 
be  withered,  his  eyes  may  be  visited  with  a  cata¬ 
ract,  his  whole  body  may  be  so  completely  para¬ 
lyzed  as  to  prevent  the  smallest  motion.  In  pre¬ 
cisely  the  same  way,  do  we  contend,  that  the 
faculties  of  the  soul  are  defective,  when  viewed  in 
relation  to  spiritual  acts.  There  is  a  cataract  in 
the  eye  of  the  understanding,  there  is  benumedness 
in  the  heart,  there  is  rigidity  in  the  will,  there  is 
lethargy  in  the  conscience  ;  in  a  word,  the  whole 
soul  is  in  a  paralyzed  condition.  It  may,  there¬ 
fore,  with  the  same  propriety,  be  said,  that  the 
paralytic  is  physically  able  to  rise  up  and  walk,  as 
that  the  spiritually  paralyzed  soul,  is  physically 
able  to  keep  the  commandments  of  God. 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  the  term  “natu¬ 
ral  ability,”  as  used  in  the  present  case,  is  quite 
ambiguous.  Nor  is  this  all,  it  is  wholly  inapli- 
cable.  An  ability  for  the  performance  of  any 
given  act,  must  derive  its  character  from  the  na¬ 
ture  of  the  act  to  be  performed.  If  the  act  be 
natural ,  the  ability  to  perform  it  must  be  natural ; 
and  if  the  act  be  moral ,  the  ability  to  perform  it 
must  be  moral.  But  the  subject  under  considera¬ 
tion  relates  exclusively  to  moral  acts.  To  speak, 
therefore,  of  a  natural  ability  to  perform  these,  is 


172 


an  abuse  of  terms.  For  a  moral  act  can  only  be 
performed  by  a  moral  ability.  Hence  the  terms, 
“natural  ability,”  and  “natural  inability,”  should 
be  excluded  from  the  discussion  of  this  subject, 
unless  they  be  used  with  an  entire  reference  to  the 
origin  of  that  moral  ability  or  inability,  which  the 
case  alone  involves.  In  this  restricted  sense,  the 
epithet  “natural,”  merely  expresses  what  is  con¬ 
nate  to  man,  or  possessed  by  him  as  born  into  the 
world.  And,  as  we  maintain,  that  there  is  in 
Adam’s  children  a  moral  inability  to  meet  the  re¬ 
quirements  of  the  divine  law,  we  also  contend  that 
that  inability  is  natural  to  them. 

In  regard  to  the  use  of  the  term  “  moral  inabil¬ 
ity,”  a  few  words  must  also  be  said.  If  by  this 
term,  were  simply  meant  an  inability  to  perform 
moral  acts,  or  to  answer  the  requirements  of  God’s 
moral  law,  it  would  be  proper,  and  would  express 
a  great  scriptural  truth.  We  are,  indeed,  pos¬ 
sessed  of  a  “  moral  inability  For  we  are  unable 
of  ourselves  to  do  any  thing  aright,  which  the 
holy  law  of  God  demands.  We  cannot  believe, 
nor  repent,  nor  perform  any  holy  moral  act,  with¬ 
out  enjoying  the  supernatural  aid  of  the  Spirit  of 
God.  This,  however,  is  not  the  meaning  of  the 
term,  as  used  by  those,  who  advocate  the  existence 
of  a  “natural  ability,”  and  “moral  inability,”  in 


173 


fallen  man.  For  by  “  moral  inability,”  they  tell 
us,  they  mean  an  inability  arising  from  the  will . 
According  to  them,  the  sinner  can  do  every  thing 
which  the  law  requires,  but  he  will  not :  There¬ 
fore,  while  he  is  naturally  able ,  he  is  morally  un¬ 
able  to  do  his  duty :  His  inability  arises  solely 
from  a  wrong  choice — it  is  a  voluntary  inability  ! 
Such  language  appears  to  us  to  involve  an  absurd¬ 
ity  :  For  it  supposes,  that  a  poiver  to  perform  our 
duty  can  be  either  created  or  destroyed,  at  pleasure, 
by  a  simple  act  of  the  will !  That  so  great  a  mat¬ 
ter  as  “power  to  keep  God’s  law,”  can  be  deter¬ 
mined  by  a  mere  volition!  Yea,  thaj;  the  sinner 
chooses  inability ,  when  he  might  equally  well 
choose  ability!  Now,  the  truth  is,  that  neither 
ability  nor  inability,  is  an  appropriate  object  of 
volition.  If  a  person  possess  the  power  of  per¬ 
forming  some  given  action,  he  cannot,  by  a  mere 
volition,  divest  himself  of  that  power  ;  and  if  he 
do  not  possess  the  power  of  performing  it,  a  mere 
volition  can  never  give  him  that  power.  A  moral 
agent,  however,  may  have  the  power  of  obeying 
God,  and  yet  choose  not  to  obey  him.  But  this 
cannot,  with  propriety,  be  called  a  “  voluntary  in¬ 
ability  it  is  only  a  voluntary  disuse  of  a  possessed 
ability .  Perhaps  some  will  say,  that  this  is  all 
they  intend  by  a  “  moral  or  voluntary  inability.” 

15* 


174 


Let  us  inquire,  then,  whether  there  really  be  in 
fallen  man  this  power,  which  may  be  used  or  dis¬ 
used,  at  pleasure  ?  This  is  the  main  question. 

Now,  that  he  possesses  no  such  power  or  abil¬ 
ity,  is  evident ;  because  it  has  already  been  proved 
that  he  has  lost  the  “  image  of  God,”  and  is  totally 
corrupt ;  yea,  that  in  regard  to  spiritual  matters, 
there  is  a  real  defect  in  all  the  faculties  of  his  soul, 
his  understanding  being  blinded,  his  will  perverted, 
his  conscience  defiled,  and  his  affections  alienated ; 
so  that  he  can  no  more  yield  a  holy  obedience  to 
God’s  law,  than  the  paralytic  can  rise  and  walk. 
And  to  confirm  this  truth  more  fully,  let  the  fol- 
lowing  passages  of  Scripture,  among  others,  be 
attentively  considered.  “  The  natural  man  re- 
ceiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  for 
they  are  foolishness  to  him  ;  neither  can  he  know 
them,  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned.” 
(1.  Cor.  ii.  14.)  “The  carnal  mind  is  enmity 
against  God ;  for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of 
God,  neither  indeed  can  be.”  (Rom.  viii.  7.)  “No 
man  can  say  that  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  but  by  the 
Holy  Ghost.”  (1.  Cor.  xii.  3.)  “No  man  can 
come  to  me,  except  the  Father,  which  hath  sent 
me,  draw  him.”  (John  vi.  44.)  “  You  hath  he 
quickened,  who  were  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins.” 
(Eph.  ii.  1.)  “The  hour  is  coming,  and  now  is. 


175 


when  the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of 
God  ;  and  they  that  hear  shall  live.”  (John  v.  25.) 
“  Can  the  Ethiopian  change  his  skin,  or  the 
leopard  his  spots  ?  then  may  ye  also  do  good,  that 
are  accustomed  to  do  evil.”  {Jer.  xii.  23.) 

The  above  texts  plainly  teach  us,  that  the  ability 
in  question  is  not  to  be  found  in  fallen  man,  that  the 
exercise  of  it  should  depend  upon  his  will.  And 
who,  believing  those  texts  to  be  inspired  of  God, 
can  consistently  maintain  the  contrary,  that  there 
is  a  previous  power  in  every  man  qualifying  him 
for  the  performance  of  holy  acts,  which  may  be 
used  by  him,  or  not,  according  to  the  pleasure  of 
his  will?  Surely  such  a  sentiment  is  no  where 
contained  in  the  word  of  God.  Hence,  if  the  sin¬ 
ner  will  not  do  his  duty ;  if  he  will  not  love  and 
serve  God  ;  if  he  will  not  come  to  Christ  for  life, 
it  is  not  because  he  refuses  to  exercise  a  possessed 
ability,  but  because  he  has  not  the  ability  which 
can  be  thus  exercised.  He  cannot,  by  a  mere  voli¬ 
tion,  remove  the  blindness  from  his  understanding  ; 
he  cannot,  by  a  mere  volition,  slay  the  enmity  of  his 
heart ;  he  cannot,  by  a  mere  volition,  banish  away 
that  disorder  and  corruption  which  have  seized  on 
all  the  faculties  of  his  soul.  His  inability,  therefore, 
is  not  seated  in  his  will  alone;  it  possesses  a  more 
comprehensive  sway ;  it  resides  in  all  his  faculties. 


176 


And  those  also  who  would  confine  it  to  a  mere 
“disinclination,”  or  “  indisposition,”  egregiously 
mistake  the  matter.  For  we  find,  that  even  in  the 
saints  there  may  be  an  inclination ,  or  disposition , 
to  do  what  is  good,  Mien  the  ability  is  wanting. 
Said  Christ  to  his  disciples  in  the  garden,  “The 
Spirit  indeed  is  willing,  but  the  flesh  is  weak.” 
(Matt.  xxvi.  41.)  Paul  says  of  himself,  “The 
good  that  I  would,  I  do  not :  but  the  evil  which  I 
would  not,  that  I  do.  Now,  if  I  do  that  I  would 
not,  it  is  no  more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  that  dwel- 
leth  in  me.  I  find  then  a  law,  that  when  I  would 
do  good,  evil  is  present  with  me.”  (Rom.  vii.  19 
■ — £1.)  And  he  writes  to  the  Galatians,  “The 
flesh  lusteth  against  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit 
against  the  flesh  ;  and  these  are  contrary,  the  one 
to  the  other  ;  so  that  ye  cannot  do  the  things  that 
ye  would.”  (Ch.  v.  17.)  How,  then,  can  it  be 
said,  that  the  sinner’s  want  of  inclination  to  do  his 
duty,  is  his  only  inability,  when  the  saint,  with 
this  inclination,  is  not  unincumbered  of  all  ina¬ 
bility  ? 

Having  proved,  then,  that  man  is  unable  to  keep 
God’s  law,  it  may  be  inquired  whether  this  inability 
resides  in  him  from  his  very  birth,  or  whether  it 
becomes  incidentally  attached  to  him  afterwards  ? 
Or,  in  other  words,  whether  it  be  natural,  or  ac- 


177 


quired?  If  it  be  said,  that  it  is  acquired;  we 
would  ask,  at  what  time  did  it  begin  to  be  acquir¬ 
ed?  And  if  it  be  answered,  At  the  time  the  first 
actual  sin  was  committed ;  we  would  ask  again, 
how  the  ability,  which  must,  in  that  case  have  ex¬ 
isted  prior  to  the  commission  of  the  first  sin,  could 
consist  with  the  “  want  of  original  righteousness,” 
and  with  the  “  inherent  corruption  of  nature,” 
which  we  have  before  proved  to  exist  even  in  the 
case  of  infants?  Indeed,  mankind  could  not  be 
said  to  be  “by  nature  children  of  wrath,”  if  they 
were  neither  chargeable  with  sin,  nor  wanted 
ability  to  observe  the  requirements  of  the  divine 
law  :  For  this  would  be  all  that  God  could  reason¬ 
ably  demand  of  them  in  that  condition.  Again, 
the  Apostle  says,  “  When  we  were  without 
strength,  Christ  died  for  the  ungodly.”  Now, 
did  Christ  die  for  any  infants  ?  Then  they  were 
not  only  “ungodly,”  but  also  without  “strength.” 
The  inability,  therefore,  of  which  we  are  speaking, 
is  natural  to  man,  it  belongs  inherently  to  our  fal¬ 
len  nature.  Since,  therefore  God  has  deprived  the 
descendants  of  Adam  of  that  power,  with  which 
he  was  endowed  at  his  creation,  we  cannot  possibly 
avoid  considering  this  as  a  punishment  sent  on 


178 


them  for  his  transgression.*  But  his  transgress- 
ion  must  be  imputed  to  them,  in  virtue  of  a  power 
contained  in  the  original  covenant,  before  it  could 
be  made  the  basis  of  a  penal  procedure  against 
them.  Hence,  in  the  infliction  of  this  punishment, 
God  does  not  act  merely  as  a  sovereign,  but  as  a 
righteous  Judge,  dispensing  justice  according  to 
the  penal  sanction  of  the  covenant  of  works. 


*  Man’s  inability  to  obey  his  Creator  is  his  si?i  as  well  as  his 
punishment.  This  may  be  illustrated  by  the  case  of  a  convict  in  a 
Penitentiary.  His  confinement  there  is  his  punishment  for  having 
committed  a  criminal  act;  but  it  is  also  his  sin,  as  he  is  thereby 
disqualified  for  performing  his  natural  obligations  to  society.  We 
will  suppose  him  to  be  a  husband  and  a  father — and  that  his  wife 
and  children  are  suffering  through  his  non-performance,  in  con¬ 
sequence  of  his  imprisonment,  of  those  duties  towards  them, 
which  the  marriage  covenant  and  the  law  of  nature  had  made 
obligatory  upon  him.  Is  not,  therefore,  his  state  of  disability  for 
the  performance  of  those  duties  his  sin  ?  He  is  living  in  the 
constant  omission  of  duties,  which  he  had  most  solemnly  obli¬ 
gated  himself  to  perform.  His  punishment  cannot  cancel  his 
obligation  to  perform  those  duties.  If  otherwise,  mankind,  by 
turning  criminals,  would  have  it  in  their  power  to  disannul  the 
law  of  God  and  cancel  all  its  preceptive  claims ;  yea,  to  banish 
that  law  entirely  from  the  earth.  The  convict’s  state  of  dis¬ 
qualification  for  discharging  the  prior  obligations  of  the  law  is, 
therefore,  a  sinful  state.  And  indeed  he  is  laid  under  a  necessity 
of  sinning.  He  would  sin  if  he  escaped  from  the  prison,  and 
the  fact  of  his  being  there,  in  a  state  of  disability  for  performing 
his  duty  towards  his  family  and  society,  is  also  his  sin.  In  like 
manner,  we  hold,  that  man’s  inability  to  keep  the  command¬ 
ments  of  God  is  not  only  a  penal  infliction  for  sin,  but  is  also  in 
itself  a  sin. 


179 


Sec.  2. — From  the  Sufferings  and  Death  of  In¬ 
fants. 

The  sufferings  and  death  of  infants  prove  the 
doctrine  in  question.  That  many  of  Adam’s  chil¬ 
dren  suffer  and  die  in  infancy,  before  the  commis¬ 
sion  of  actual  sin,  is  a  fact  which  all  are  forced  to 
admit.  Now,  from  this  fact,  the  imputation  of 
Adam’s  sin  to  his  posterity,  is  easily  inferred. 
The  argument  is  simply  this : — Death  is  the  pe¬ 
nalty  of  sin,  but  infants,  who  are  not  chargeable 
with  actual  sin,  die,  therefore,  they  must  be  re¬ 
garded  as  having  the  sin  of  their  representative, 
Adam,  charged  to  their  account.  To  make  this 
argument  conclusive,  all  that  is  necessary  is  to 
prove  that  death  is  the  penalty  of  sin.  We  know 
that  this  is  denied,  with  the  greatest  boldness,  by 
many  ;  but  it  is  denied  in  the  open  face  both  of 
reason  and  of  revelation.  Reason  teaches,  that  suf¬ 
fering  and  death  are  evils,  and  that  innocent  crea¬ 
tures  cannot  be  subjected  to  them,  without  being 
chargeable  with  guilt,  unless,  what  is  blasphemous 
to  assert,  God,  who  indicts  these  evils,  is  charge¬ 
able  with  injustice.  There  is  little  need,  however, 
of  appealing  to  reason  on  a  point  which  revelation 
so  plainly  inculcates.  The  three  following  propo¬ 
sitions,  laid  down  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  unequivo- 


18a 


cally  teach,  that  sin  is  the  meritorious  and  pro¬ 
curing  cause  of  death.  “  Sin  entered  into  the 
world  and  death  by  sin;” — “death  passed  upon  all 
men,  for  that  all  have  sinned,” — “the  wages  of  sin 
is  death.”  (Rom.  v.  12,  and  vi.  23.)  Temporal 
death,  although  far  from  embracing  the  whole  of 
the  death,  of  which  the  Apostle  speaks,  is  never¬ 
theless  included  in  it.  It  is,  therefore,  a  part  of 
the  wages  of  sin,  that  is  to  say,  sin  is  its  meri¬ 
torious  cause.  Does  it  not,  then,  inevitably  fol¬ 
low  that  death  is  the  penalty  of  sin  ?  For  what  is 
meant  by  the  penalty  of  sin,  but  an  evil  suffered- 
on  account  of  sin,  as  its  meritorious  cause?  And 
in  no  other  light  do  the  Scriptures  present  death, 
when  viewed  in  its  own  nature,  and  as  unaffected 
by  the  mediation  of  Christ  Jesus.  Christ’s  media¬ 
tion  has,  indeed,  changed  the  aspect  of  death-  in 
the  case  of  all  belivers  ;  and  if  the  same  be  said  in 
relation  to  the  death  of  infants,  the  point  in  debate 
is  yielded.  For  if  Christ  has  interfered  in  their 
behalf,  and  removed  whatever  is  penal  in  death 
relative  to  them,  then  this  supposes  them  to  have 
been  antecedently  obnoxious  to  a  penal  death,  and 
consequently  chargeable  with  sin.  Scripture  as¬ 
sures  us,  that  “the  sting  of  death  is  sin,”  and 
that  the  removal  of  this  sting  is  owing  to  the 
mediation  of  Christ.  (1.  Cor.  xv.  5a— 57.)  Hence, 


181 


death,  as  befalling  infants,  is  accompanied  with 
this  sting,  or  it  is  not.  If  it  be,  it  is  a  penal  death  ; 
if  not,  there  is  an  indebtedness  to  the  work  of  a 
mediator,  and  but  for  which,  it  would  have  been  a 
penal  death,  or  a  punishment  for  sin.  If  sin,  which 
is  declared  to  be  the  u  sting  of  death,”  had  no  ex¬ 
istence  in  the  case  of  infants,  they  could  have  no 
interest  in  the  mediation  of  Christ,  they  could  not 
unite  in  the  resurrection  song  of  the  just,  “O 
death,  where  is  thy  sting'?  Thanks  be  to  God, 
who  giveth  us  the  victory  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.”  It  may  be  asserted,  then,  with  the  ut¬ 
most  confidence,  that  death,  in  itself  considered, 
and  abstracted  from  all  connection  with  the  media¬ 
tion  of  our  blessed  Redeemer,  is  an  evil,  a  punish¬ 
ment  for  sin.  And  this  is  farther  confirmed  from 
what  is  declared  to  have  been  the  end  of  Christ’s 
incarnation.  “The  Son  of  God  was  manifested, 
that  he  might  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil.” 
(1.  John  iii.  8.)  Death  must  be  included  among 
the  works  of  the  Devil.  “As  the  children  are 
partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  (Christ,)  also 
himself  likewise  took  part  of  the  same ;  that 
through  death  he  might  destroy  him  that  had  the 
power  of  death,  that  is,  the  Devil.”  (Heb.  ii.  14.) 
Now,  wherever  death  comes  to  any  of  the  children 
of  men,  old  or  young,  Satan  either  has  the  “power 

16 


18  '2 


of  it,”  or  be  has  been  dislodged  from  that  power* 
But  it  will  be  granted,  that  he  has  no  power  over 
death,  except  by  means  of  sin — surely  he  has  no 
power  over  it  but  what  sin  gives  him :  Hence, 
the  atonement  which  Christ  has  made  for  sin, 
“through  his  death,”  is  that  which  has  divested 
Satan  of  his  “power  of  death.”  Let  death,  there¬ 
fore,  come  in  either  of  the  ways  above  specified, 
the  case  is  precisely  the  same,  so  far  as  our  argu¬ 
ment  is  concerned.  For  it  is  obvious  that  sin  and 
death  are  legally  connected,  antecedently  of  all 
consideration  of  Christ’s  death,  and  the  consequent 
destruction  of  Satan’s  power.  In  other  words, 
death,  in  its  own  nature,  is  the  penalty  of  sin.* 
Many  futile  attempts  are  made  to  invalidate  the 
force  of  the  foregoing  reasoning,  as  applied  to  the 
death  of  infants.  It  is  pretended  that  their  death 
is  a  chastisement ,  and  not  a  punishment.  But  this 
is  yielding  the  point  in  dispute ;  for  who  does  not 
perceive  that  a  chastisement  always  presupposes 
some  fault,  some  sin  in  the  subject  of  it  ?  The 
sufferings  and  death  of  infants  are  supposed,  by 
others,  to  form  a  part  of  a  system  of  moral  dis¬ 
cipline ,  designed  for  the  betterment  of  their  con¬ 
dition.  But  the  application  of  such  “moral  dis- 


*  See  chap.  iii.  Secs.  6  and  8. 


183 


cipline,”  without  any  sin  in  its  subjects,  appears 
to  be  incompatible  with  the  moral  rectitude  of  the 
divine  government.  It  would  resemble  the  case 
of  a  parent  giving  his  child  a  most  unmerciful 
beating,  and  at  the  same  time  telling  him,  “You 
have  never  committed  any  wrong,  you  have  never 
offended  me  at  all,  I  only  inflict  this  salutary  dis¬ 
cipline  upon  you  with  the  view  of  bettering  your 
condition,  of  rendering  you  more  capable  of  enjoy¬ 
ing  happiness  hereafter!”  Such  procedure  in  a 
parent,  would  surely  be  regarded  with  abhorrence  ; 
and  shall  such  procedure  be  ascribed  to  the  God 
of  holiness  ?  Indeed,  could  we,  when  witnessing 
the  sufferings  and  agonies  of  the  dying  infant,  be 
persuaded  of  the  entire  innocence  of  the  little  suf¬ 
ferer,  in  the  view  of  the  Divine  mind,  we  should 
esteem  the  author  of  its  sufferings  to  be  a  Moloch, 
instead  of  the  “Holy  One  of  Israel,  who  delight- 
eth  in  mercy.”  But  it  is  further  said,  that  inno¬ 
cent  brutes  suffer  and  die,  and  why  not  charge 
them  with  the  sin  of  Adam,  as  well  as  infants? 
We  answer,  that  the  brute  creation  was  remotely 
affected  by  the  sin  of  Adam  ;  he  was  constituted 
their  lord  ;  he  was  appointed  a  head  of  dominion 
to  them  ;  and  although  he  did  not  represent  them  in 
the  covenant,  yet  his  fall  disgraced  them,  and  his 
sin  was  remotely  visited  upon  them.  Any  dis- 


184 


grace  or  calamity,  which  befalls  the  head  of  any 
government  affects  the  whole  body  politic.  “If  the 
head  suffer,  all  the  members  suffer  with  it.”  In 
like  manner,  when  “the  lord  of  this  lower  crea¬ 
tion”  fell,  by  transgression,  from  his  high  dignity, 
all  the  subjects  of  his  dominion  were  involved, 
consequentially,  to  a  certain  extent,  in  his  disgrace 
and  ruin.  The  brutes  suffer  in  the  sense,  in  which 
they  are  capable  subjects  of  suffering.  Their  suf¬ 
ferings  cannot  be  penal ,  because  they  are  not  pro¬ 
per  subjects  of  sin,  not  being  subjects  of  a  moral 
law.  But  it  is  essentially  different  with  infants. 
They  stand  related  to  Adam  in  a  far  more  interest¬ 
ing  and  exalted  manner.  They  are  related  to  him, 
both  as  their  natural  and  moral  head.  They  are 
also  proper  subjects  of  penal  suffering.  They  are 
human  beings  ;  they  bear  the  image  and  likeness 
of  fallen  Adam  :  they,  are,  moreover,  subjects  of 
the  moral  law  of  God,  else  they  could  not  be  re¬ 
ceived  into  heaven,  unless  we  suppose  an  absurdi¬ 
ty,  that  there  are  some  in  heaven  that  are  not  sub¬ 
jects  of  law.*  Hence,  it  is  unreasonable  to  com¬ 
pare  the  sufferings  of  children  to  those  of  brutes. 
But  if  they  do  not  suffer  and  die  like  brutes,  then 
their  sufferings  and  death,  in  their  own  nature  con- 


*  See  chap.  iv.  Sec.  8. 


185 


sidered,  must  be  the  penal  effect  of  sin,  not,  in¬ 
deed,  of  their  own  personal  sin,  for  they  have 
none,  but  of  the  sin  of  Adam  imputed  to  them. 

But  we  are  told  again,  that  the  death  of  infants 
can  only  be  viewed  as  the  consequence  of  Adam’s 
sin,  and  not  its  penal  effect.  The  Socinians  for¬ 
merly  contended,  that  death  was  a  “consequent 
of  nature,”  and  that  men  would  have  died,  al¬ 
though  sin  had  never  entered  into  the  world.  This 
sentiment  is  found  to  contradict  the  Bible  so  glar- 
ingly,  that  it  is  relinquished  by  those,  who,  in 
many  respects,  coincide  with  the  inventers  of  it ; 
and  the  ground,  on  which  they  would  stand,  is, 
that  death  is  in  no  case  the  penalty,  but  only  the 
consequence  of  Adam’s  sin.  And  so  it  might  be 
said  that  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  was 
the  consequence  of  Adam’s  sin ;  that  the  preaching 
of  the  Gospel  was  the  consequence  of  Adam’s  sin  ; 
and  that  the  singing  of  the  redeemed,  in  glory — 
“  Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our 
sins  in  his  own  blood,”  &c.,  was  the  consequence 
of  the  sin  of  Adam.  But  has  death,  especially 
in  the  case  of  infants,  no  other  connection,  than 
instances  of  this  kind,  with  the  sin  of  Adam  ?  If 
death  be  only  a  consequence  of  sin,  how  came  the 
Apostle  to  tell  us  that  it  is  “  the  wages  of  sin?” 
Is  it  answered,  that  “the  wages”  of  our  personal 

1G* 


186 


sins  “  is  death  V '  The  Apostle  makes  no  distinc¬ 
tion — death,  wherever  it  appears,  is  lt  the  wages 
of  sin.”  And  does  it  appear  among  infants,  who 
have  no  personal  sins  of  their  own  ?  then  it  must 
be  the  wages  of  Adam's  sin  as  charged  to  their 
account. 

But  to  disprove  our  position,  it  is  again  assert¬ 
ed,  that  death  is  a  blessing  to  infants,  as  it  is  a 
blessing  to  all  believers.  We  answer,  that  death 
is  a  blessing  to  believers  only  through  the  Media¬ 
tion  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and  if  it  be  a  bless¬ 
ing  to  infants  in  the  same  manner,  then  it  follows, 
that  irrespective  of  his  mediation,  it  would  not  be 
a  blessing  to  them,  but  a  curse,  and  consequently 
the  penal  effect  of  sin.  But  to  avoid  this  con¬ 
clusion,  those  whom  we  are  opposing  are  obliged 
to  maintain,  (what  indeed  is  very  absurd,)  that 
death  comes  to  infants  as  a  blessing  in  consequence 
of  Adam’s  sin!  We  acknowledge  that  God,  in  the 
exceeding  riches  of  his  wisdom  and  grace,  has 
overruled  the  sin  of  Adam  and  made  it  redound  to 
his  greater  glory,  and  to  the  greater  happiness  of 
his  redeemed  people;  but  to  convert  death  into  a 
blessing ,  coming  in  consequence  of  Adams  sin , 
sounds  exceedingly  strange  !  This  is  to  represent 
sinning  Adam  as  a  head  of  blessing  and  not  of  evil 
to  his  posterity  !  Here  is  at  least  one  blessing 


187 


for  which  glorified  infants  are  indebted  to  the  first 
and  not  to  the  second  Adam,  viz  :  the  blessing  of 
death  !  We  do  most  heartly  grant,  that  death  is  a 
blessing  to  all  those  “who  die  in  the  Lord.”  But 
they  enjoy  it  as  a  blessing,  not  in  consequence  of 
Adam's  sin,  but  as  the  fruit  and  effect  of  Christ’s 
righteousness.  There  is,  indeed,  nothing  penal 
in  death  to  a  believer  ;  but  this  is  because  Christ 
has  died  for  him,  and  by  means  of  his  death  has 
robbed  death  of  its  sting.  And  the  believer  is 
warranted  to  view  death,  as  coming  to  him  through 
the  death  of  his  Saviour,  and  consequently  as  a 
blessing.  But  at  the  same  time,  death,  considered 
in  its  own  nature,  and  as  “  reigning  by  the  offense 
of  Adam”  and  as  abstracted  from  all  consideration 
of  the  death  of  Christ,  is  a  penal  evil ,  is  “the 
wages  of  sin.”  And  hence  the  death  of  infants 
conclusively  establishes  the  truth  of  “  original  sin 
imputed.”* 

In  Chapter  vi.,  Section  3.,  we  have  shown,  that 
Adam’s  offense  had  procured  a  judgment,  or  sen¬ 
tence  of  condemnation,  against  all  mankind. — 
There  is,  indeed,  a  difference  between  condemna¬ 
tion,  or  adjudication  to  the  endurance  of  the  pe¬ 
nalty  of  God’s  law,  and  the  actual  infliction  of  that 


Sep  Ohnp.  iii.  See.  3. 


188 


penalty.  But  in  the  arguments  which  have  suc¬ 
ceeded,  we  have  proved  the  actual  infliction  of  the 
penalty,  to  a  certain  extent,  upon  all  the  offspring 
of  Adam  ;  we  have  proved  that  they  are  born  into 
the  world  destitute  of  the  image  of  God,  are  pos¬ 
sessed  of  a  morally  corrupted  nature,  and  are  dis¬ 
abled  for  meeting  the  requirements  of  the  divine 
and  unalterable  law  of  God  ;  which  evils  consti¬ 
tute  the  elements  of  spiritual  death,  and  are,  there¬ 
fore,  parts  of  the  threatened  penalty  actually  in¬ 
flicted.  And  we  have  also  proved  the  infliction  of 
another  part  of  the  penalty,  or  what  is  equivalent 
thereto,  in  the  temporal  sufferings  and  death  of  in¬ 
fants.  But  the  penalty  has  been  thus  actually  in¬ 
flicted  on  Adam’s  seed,  on  account  of  his  “one 
offense.”  For  says  the  Apostle,  “through  the 
offense  of  one  many  are  dead  and  again,  “by 
one  man’s  offense  death  reigned  by  one.”  (Rom. 
v.  15,  17.)  Has  the  penalty,  then,  been  inflicted 
upon  all,  and  that  on  account  of  Adam’s  offense, 
as  the  Apostle  declares  ?  How  is  it  possible,  then, 
to  avoid  the  conclusion,  that  that  offense  has  been 
imputed  to  all  1  Does  God  inflict  the  penalty  of 
his  law  upon  any  of  his  creatures  for  an  offense, 
if  that  offense  be  not  legally  and  judicially  charged 
to  their  account  1  To  suppose  such  a  thing  would 
be  little  short  of  blasphemy  ;  it  would  surely  be  a 


189 


high  affront  offered  to  the  character  of  the  Holy 
One  of  Israel.  It  is  true  the  penalty  is  not  in¬ 
flicted  upon  all,  in  its  full  extent.  This  only  takes 
place  in  the  case  of  those,  who  go  down  to  the 
pit  of  eternal  destruction.  In  regard  to  all  the 
present  generation  of  mankind,  and  in  regard  to 
all  the  “spirits  of  the  just  made  perfect”  before 
the  throne,  the  penalty,  so  far  as  it  embraces  eter¬ 
nal  death,  has  not  been  inflicted ;  but  as  embracing 
spiritual  death,  it  has  been  experienced  by  all  of 
these.  Consequently  the  argument  holds  good  ; 
for  if,  in  any  instance,  the  penalty  has  not  been 
fully  inflicted  to  the  whole  extent  of  the  threaten¬ 
ing,  this  has  been  owing  to  the  sovereign  grace 
and  mercy  of  the  Lord  our  God.  On  the  whole, 
then,  if  death,  spiritual  and  temporal,  according 
to  the  proofs  offered,  has  “reigned  by  the  offense 
of  one,”  over  all,  even  over  infants,  who  have  com¬ 
mitted  no  sin  in  their  own  persons,  how  can  this 
be  reconciled  to  the  justice  of  God,  if  there  has 
not  been  a  universal  imputation  of  the  guilt  of 
Adam’s  first  sin? 

Sec.  3.-< — From  the  Salvation  of  Infants. 

The  salvation  of  infants  proves,  that  Adam’s 
first  sin  is  imputed  to  his  posterity.  This  we  urge 
as  our  last  proof  of  the  doctrine,  from  the  convie- 


190 


ticn  that  any  additional  proofs  would  be  unneces¬ 
sary  and  superfluous.  And  here,  we  do  not  wish 
to  be  understood  as  maintaining;,  that  all  those 
who  die  in  infancy  are  saved.  The  Scriptures 
make  a  distinction  between  the  seed  of  the  ungodly 
and  the  seed  of  believers.  God  is  called  the  God 
of  the  seed  of  the  righteous,  but  he  is  no  where 
called  the  God  of  the  seed  of  the  unbelieving  and 
unholy.  But  why  this  distinction,  if  all  infants, 
dying  in  a  state  of  infancy  are  saved?  We  can¬ 
not  believe,  that  the  infants  who  perished  in  the 
flood,  when  Noah  only  was  found  righteous  before 
God — that  the  infants  who  were  consumed  in 
Sodom,  when  God  declared,  that  if  there  had  been 
ten  righteous  persons  in  the  city,  he  would  not 
have  destroyed  it  for  their  sake — that  the  infants 
belonging  to  the  company  of  Korah,  that  were 
swallowed  up  by  the  earth — and  that  the  infants 
of  the  daughter  of  Babylon,  concerning  whom 
God  said,  “happy  shall  he  be  that  taketh  and 
dasheth  thy  little  ones  against  the  stones,”  were 
all  saved.  The  Scriptures  do  not  direct  us  to  be¬ 
lieve  any  such  thing.  Are  we  not  rather  to  be¬ 
lieve  that  God  displays  his  sovereignty  in  relation 
to  the  salvation  of  infants,  as  he  does  in  relation 
to  the  salvation  of  adults  ?  Here  we  are  willing 
to  leave  the  matter,  believing  that  the  “Judge  of 


191 


all  the  earth  does  right,”  while  he  is  not  bound  “  to 
give  us  an  account  of  any  of  his  matters.”  But, 
.what  is  sufficient  for  the  present  argument,  the 
Scriptures,  do  expressly  teach  us  the  salvation  of 
some  infants.  Says  our  blessed  Lord,  “  Suffer  lit¬ 
tle  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not, 
for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.”  Now,  the 
salvation  of  infants  presupposes  them  to  be  sub¬ 
jects  of  guilt  and  pollution.  W ere  they  not  charge¬ 
able  with  sin,  Christ  could  not  be  their  Saviour. 
This  is  evident  from  his  name — “  Thou  shalt  call 
his  name  Jesus,  for  he  shall  save  his  people  from 
their  sins .”  And  to  this  corresponds  that  heavenly 
song,  “Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us 
from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood f  &c.  If  infants 
have  any  part  in  the  redemption  that  is  in  Chrisfs 
blood ,  and  if  they  are  adopted  into  God’s  family, 
they  must  be  viewed  as  antecedently  lying  under 
the  curse  of  the  law,  and  as  belonging  to  the  family 
of  Satan;  for  “God  sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of 
a  woman,  made  under  the  law,  to  redeem  them 
that  were  under  the  law,  that  we  might  receive 
the  adoption  of  sons.”  (Gal.  iv.  4,  5.)  In  a  word, 
if  infants  are  saved  by  Jesus  Christ,  they  must 
originally  possess  the  character  of  lost  sinners: 
for  “the  Son  of  Man  came  to  seek  and  to  save 
that  which  was  lost.”  (Luke  xix,  10.)  “lain 


192 


not  sent  but  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel.”  (Matt.  xv.  24.)  Since  infants,  therefore, 
are  sinful ,  under  the  curse ,  and  lost ,  and  their  sal¬ 
vation  presupposes  all  this,  how  can  we  avoid  the 
conclusion,  that  Adam’s  sin  is  imputed  to  them, 
inasmuch  as  they  have  never,  in  their  own  persons, 
transgressed  the  law  of  God  1  Indeed,  it  is  ut¬ 
terly  impossible  to  escape  from  this  conclusion, 
without  denying  the  salvation  of  infants  alto- 

i 

gether,  or,  what  is  equally  unscriptural,  denying 
that  their  introduction  into  heaven  is  owino-  to  the 
obedience  and  blood  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ.*  And  such  is  our  confidence  in  the 
convincing  force  of  this  argument,  that  we  would 
be  willing  to  depend  upon  it  alone  for  the  truth  of 
the  great  doctrine,  which  we  have  been  endeavor¬ 
ing  to  establish.  Hence  this,  in  connection  with 
the  other  arguments  advanced,  if  we  are  not 
egregiously  mistaken,  most  triumphantly  sustains 
the  position,  that  Adam’s  first  sin  is  imputed  to 

ALL  HIS  POSTERITY. 


*  See  Chap,  iv.  Sec.  9. 


193 


CHAPTER  IX. 

OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

Such  is  the  corruption  of  human  nature,  its  per¬ 
versity  and  opposition  to  the  truth,  that  we  know 
of  no  doctrine  of  divine  revelation,  against  which 
objections  have  not  been  made.  From  the  sub 
lime  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  to  that  of  the  Resur¬ 
rection  of  the  dead,  every  link  in  the  golden  chain 
of  revealed  truth  has  been  assailed  by  all  the 
power  and  ingenuity,  that  men  of  “corrupt  minds” 
have  been  able  to  command  and  exert.  The  doc¬ 
trine  of  Original  Sin,  from  its  peculiar  prominence 
in  the  system  of  supernatural  revelation,  has  re¬ 
ceived  its  full  share  of  inveteracy  and  opposition. 
A  host  of  sneers,  cavils  and  artful  objections 
have  been  brought  to  bear  against  it.  But  it  still 
retains  its  place  in  the  great  system,  and  moves 
on  in  its  orbit  of  light.  In  its  defence  the  friends 
of  truth  may  have  to  encounter  trouble,  obloquy 
and  much  labor,  but  its  destruction  is  impossible. 
F or  sooner  may  heaven  and  earth  pass  away,  than 
one  of  the  words  or  doctrines  of  “the  Amen,  the 
faithful  and  true  Witness.” 

The  objections  at  present  made  against  the  lead¬ 
ing  doctrine,  defended  in  the  preceding  pages,  are 
all  either  of  Pelagian  or  Arminian  origin  and  have 

1? 


194 


been  answered  a  thousand  times  ;  yet  as  they  ard 
brought  forward  in  something  of  a  new  dress,  and 
are  urged  with  much  confidence  and  complacency, 
even  to  the  subverting  of  souls ,  it  becomes  neces¬ 
sary  still  to  meet  them,  undress  them,  expose 
and  condemn  them.  In  the  progress  of  this  Trea¬ 
tise,  we  have  already  anticipated  and  removed  the 
greater  part  of  these  objections  ;  especially  such  as 
are  levelled  against  particular  parts  of  the  general 
argument.  There  are  a  few,  however,  of  a  gene¬ 
ral  character,  which  have  not  yet  been  noticed,  and 
some  of  those  that  have  been,  require  a  more  ex¬ 
panded  answer  than  was  before  given.  To  intro¬ 
duce  these  and  give  them  such  answers,  as  we 
hope  will  be  considered  satisfactory,  is  our  design 
in  the  present  Chapter. 

Sec.  1. — The  Objection ,  that  the  Doctrine  is  con¬ 
trary  to  Common  Sense ,  Answered. 

It  is  objected  to  the  doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  as 
presented  in  the  preceding  pages,  that  it  is  con¬ 
trary  to  the  dictates  of  common  sense.  “The 
doctrine  of  imputed  sin,”  says  the  New  Haven 
School,  “is  contrary  to  the  decision  of  the  compe¬ 
tent  unperverted  reason  of  mankind  ;  i.  e.  contrary 
to  common  sense,  and  as  such  to  be  rejected.” 
Now7,  there  are  three  things  wrong  about  this  ob- 


195 


jection. — First ,  there  is  a  begging  of  the  question , 
or  a  taking-  for  granted  the  point  in  dispute.  The 
doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  as  we  hold  it,  implies  the 
corruption  or  perversion  of  human  reason  in  spiritu¬ 
al  matters,  yet  the  objection  speaks  of  the  “un¬ 
perverted  reason  of  mankind  hence  the  objection 
can  have  no  other  force  than  that  of  a  bare  contra¬ 
diction.  And,  indeed,  it  is  surprising  to  hear  peo¬ 
ple  talk  of  the  “  unperverted  reason  of  mankind,” 
after  what  the  Apostle  has  said — “  The  natural 
man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God, 
for  they  are  foolishness  to  him  ;  neither  can  he 
know  them,  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned.” 
And  Solomon  says — “He  that  trusteth  to  his  own 
understanding  is  a  fool.” — Secondly ,  there  is  in 
the  objection  the  setting  up  of  a  judge,  whose  com¬ 
petency  to  decide  the  controversy  we  deny  ;  and  ac¬ 
cordingly  from  whose  decision,  if  it  be  against  us, 
we  have  the  right  to  appeal.  Who  made  common 
sense  “a  judge  over  us”  in  this  matter1?  Does  its 
jurisdiction  extend  to  matters  of  pure  revelation? 
And  besides,  is  it  not  a  prejudiced  judge?  Is  not 
the  carnal  and  unsanctified  reason  of  mankind 
unfriendly,  nay,  positively  inimical  to  the  humbling 
and  self-emptying  doctrines  of  the  Holy  Bible? 
Granting  that  reason  is  a  competent  judge  in  mere 
natural  things,  we  can  by  no  means  allow  it  to 


196 


possess  this  dignity  in  “  the  things  of  the  Spirit 
of  God.” — And  Thirdly ,  there  is  in  the  objection  a 
falsehood ,  when  it  is  asserted,  that  the  doctrine  in 
dispute  is  “  contrary  to  common  sense.”  For  it 
is  only  contrary  to  the  unsanctified  common  sense 
of  mankind,  and  not  to  the  common  sense  of  those, 
who  have  been  taught,  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus.  This  doctrine  has  never  been 
opposed  by  the  sanctified  reason  of  the  thousands, 
who  have,  in  every  age  of  the  Church,  embraced 
it,  as  one  of  God’s  truths,  and  some  of  whom  have 
died  martyrs  in  its  defence. 

We  protest,  however,  against  the  practice  of  de¬ 
termining  any  doctrine  of  revelation  by  an  appeal 
to  the  common  sense  of  mankind.  By  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  and  by  them  alone,  must  we  determine 
“whether  these  things  be  so.”  The  doctrine  in 
question  is  one  of  pure  revelation.  Our  reason 
cannot  be  supposed  to  know  any  thing  respecting 
the  federal  representative  character  of  Adam — the 
hinge  on  which  the  whole  controversy  mainly 
turns.  That  point  may  be  true  or  false,  for  any 
thing  that  reason  knows  to  the  contrary.  But  if 
the  Bible  reveals  it  that  is  enough,  and  reason, 
when  sanctified  by  the  grace  of  God,  will  never 
be  found  entering  a  decision  against  it.  The  Deist 
rejects  revelation  entirely,  because  it  appears  to 


197 


him  to  be  unreasonable  :  The  Unitarian  rejects  the 
doctrine  of  a  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead, 
because  it  appears  to  him  to  be  unreasonable :  Are 
they  therefore  right?  And  if  the  Pelagian  and 
Arminian  et  omne  id  genus  reject  the  doctrine  of 
Original  Sin,  because  to  them  it  appears  unreason¬ 
able  ;  must  we,  therefore,  conclude  that  they  are 
right  ?  Must  we  oppose  and  reject  every  thing  as 
false ,  that  is  opposed  by  the  corrupt  reason  of 
some?  Besides  is  it  not  grossly  absurd  and  even 
ridiculous ,  when  we  wish  to  ascertain  whether  a 
particular  tenet  be  a  revealed  truth  or  not,  to  for¬ 
sake  the  Bible,  where,  if  it  be  a  truth,  it  ought  to 
be  found,  and  go  about  and  feel  the  pulse  of  com¬ 
mon  sense  upon  the  subject  ?  The  Bible  Christian 
will  never  be  at  the  pains  of  enquiring  after  the 
decision  of  the  common  sense  of  a  blind  and  un¬ 
godly  race  on  any  point,  which  he  knows  should 
be  determined  by  the  Scriptures  alone.  “  To  the 
law  and  to  the  testimony,  if  they  speak  not  ac¬ 
cording  to  this  word,  it  is  because  there  is  no  light 
in  them.” 


Sec.  2.— That  it  Militates  against  the  Justice  of 

God ,  Answered. 

The  doctrine  we  maintain  is  objected  to,  on  the 
ground,  that  it  militates  against  the  justice  of  God. 

17* 


198 


This  objection  proceeds  upon  the  false  assump¬ 
tion,  that  Adam’s  posterity  were,  in  no  respect 
whatever,  concerned  in  his  sin.  W e  grant,  indeed, 
that  they  had  no  actual  agency  in  the  commission 
of  that  sin,  which  u  brought  death  into  our  world 
and  all  our  woe but  we  hold,  that  they  were 
concerned  in  it,  when  viewed  as  the  legal  repre¬ 
sentees  of  Adam.  The  objectors  entirely  over¬ 
look  this  consideration.  And  it  would  become 
them,  before  urging  their  objection,  to  disprove, 
on  solid  scriptural  ground,  the  representative  char¬ 
acter  of  Adam.  But  this  it  is  impossible  for  them 
to  do. — Is  it  then,  a  shocking  absurdity,  or  does  it 
imply  an  act  of  injustice  in  God,  for  him  to  treat 
us  as  guilty,  on  account  of  the  sin  of  our  federal 
representative?  Then,  is  it  as  great  an  absurdity 
for  the  Holy  Spirit  to  inform  us,  that  all  the  tribes 
of  Israel  came  to  Hebron  to  make  David  king  : 
when  we  are  assured,  that  it  was  only  the  elders, 
the  representatives  of  the  tribes,  that  came.  (2. 
Sam.  v.  I.  5.)  Although  the  great  mass  of  the 
people  were  actually  at  home,  attending  to  their 
own  personal  concerns,  yet  they  were  all  present 
at  Hebron,  in  their  representatives,  and  were  view¬ 
ed  as  concurring  in  the  act  of  making  David  king. 
And  was  there  no  injustice  in  imputing  this  act  to 
all  the  individuals  of  the  different  tribes,  which 


199 


was  only  personally  performed  by  their  representa¬ 
tives?  No  more,  then,  is  it  unjust  in  God  to 
charge  the  sin  of  Adam  to  the  account  of  all  those, 
whom  he,  by  a  divine  constitution,  represented  in 
the  Covenant  of  works. — God  imputes,  for  justifi¬ 
cation.  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  all  those 
whom  he  represented,  when  he  fulfilled  that  right¬ 
eousness.  (Rom.  iv.  11.  £4.  x.  3.  4.)  Is  it  unjust 
in  God  to  make  this  imputation?  No  more,  then, 
is  it  unjust  in  him  to  impute,  for  condemnation,  the 
sin  of  Adam  to  those  whom  he  represented,  at  the 
time,  when  that  sin  was  committed.  Indeed  for 
God  to  pursue  a  contrary  course,  in  either  of  these 
cases,  would,  according  to  our  apprehension  of 
things,  savor  strongly  of  injustice. — Is  the  sin  of 
the  soul  charged  upon  the  body  ?  Yes.  Why  so  ? 
In  virtue  of  the  union  subsisting  between  them. 
In  like  manner,  in  virtue  of  the  representative 
union  subsisting  between  Adam  and  his  posterity, 
his  sin  is  imputed  to  them.  Then,  as  to  the  want 
of  original  righteousness  and  the  corruption  of 
nature  befalling  them  as  a  punishment  of  the  sin 
of  their  representative,  there  is  no  injustice  in  this. 
Tf  such  procedure  be  viewed  as  unjust,  who  will 
undertake  to  vindicate  the  justice  of  God,  in  visit¬ 
ing  the  nation  of  Israel  with  three  years  of  famine , 
on  account  of  Saul’s  cruelty  towards  the  Gibeon- 


&00 


ites  ?  or  in  directing  seven  of  his  sons  to  be  hung 
for  that  sin  of  their  father?  (2  Sam.  xxi.)  This 
case,  and  others  of  a  similar  nature,  which  might 
be  adduced,  it  would  be  well  for  the  objectors  to 
consider,  before  they  charge  the  doctrine  of  “  im¬ 
puted  sin”  as  being  derogatory  to  the  justice  of 
God. 

The  truth  is,  our  doctrine  vindicates  the  justice 
of  the  divine  government,  while  it  is  that  of  the 
objectors,  which  militates  against  it.  One  class 
of  the  objectors  admit  the  fact ,  as  clearly  revealed 
in  the  Bible  and  confirmed  by  universal  experience, 
that  we  are  naturally  corrupt  and  destitute  of  holi¬ 
ness.  Now  this  is  an  evil.  And  is  it  not  more  in 
accordance  with  the  principles  of  justice,  to  view 
it  as  inflicted  in  the  way  of  punishment  for  the 
imputed  sin  of  a  legal  representative,  than  as  pro¬ 
ceeding  merely  from  an  act  of  absolute  sovereignty 
in  God  ?  To  account  for  the  existence  of  this  evil, 
in  the  latter  way,  is  certainly  to  array  the  sove¬ 
reignty  against  the  justice  of  God.  But  one  divine 
perfection  is  never  exercised  at  the  expense  of  an¬ 
other. — Equally  at  variance  with  the  honor  of  di¬ 
vine  justice  is  the  scheme  adopted  by  another  class 
of  the  objectors — that  mankind  as  born  into  the 
world  are  neither  holy  nor  unholy,  but  at  the  same 
time  placed  under  a  divine  constitution,  that  in- 


201 


fallibly  secures  a  sinful  act  as  the  frst  to  be  per¬ 
formed  by  them  as  moral  agents.  Now  we  ask 
where  is  the  justice  (to  say  nothing  of  the  good¬ 
ness)  of  God  in  placing  innocent  beings  under 
such  a  constitution'?  Can  these  objectors  solve 
the  difficulty  which  their  own  system  here  creates? 
Yet  these  are  the  persons,  who  are  continually 
crying  out  injustice ,  whenever  the  doctrine  of  im¬ 
putation  is  mentioned*  Were  they  to  attend  a 
little  more  to  the  insuperable  difficulties  which 
their  own  scheme  involves,  perhaps  they  might  be 
brought,  in  order  to  acquit  the  justice  of  God,  to 
see  the  necessity  of  embracing  the  very  doctrine, 
which  they  now  endeavor  to  ridicule  and  calum¬ 
niate. 

But  in  connection  with  the  present  objection  and 
in  support  of  it,  it  is  urged,  that  God  always  in¬ 
flicts  punishment  with  exclusive  reference  to  per¬ 
sonal  transgression ;  and  consequently,  that  the 
doctrine,  which  would  represent  the  children  of 
Adam  as  involved  in  the  punishment  of  his  sin,  is 
false.  And  here,  as  usual,  a  confident  appeal  is 
made  to  the  “competent,  unperverted  reason  of 
mankind  !”  But  let  our  appeal  be  to  God’s  infal¬ 
lible  word,  in  order  to  ascertain,  whether  it  be  a 
fact,  that  “God  always  inflicts  punishment  with 
exclusive  reference  to  personal  transgression.” — 


202 


And  what  do  we  there  discover  concerning  the  na- 
lure  of  Messiah's  sufferings  ?  Were  they  not 
truly  a  punishment  for  sin  ?  And  if  so,  for  what 
sin  ?  Not  surely  for  any  personal  sin  of  his  own, 
but  exclusively  for  the  sin  of  others.  A  bare  de¬ 
nial  that  his  sufferings  constituted  a  legal  punish¬ 
ment  for  sin  will  not  be  admitted,  so  long  as  the 
Scriptures  are  so  express  and  pointed  upon  the  sub¬ 
ject.  “  Yea,  let  God  be  true,  and  every  man  a 
liar.” — Isaiah,  prophesying  of  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  declares — “He  bare  the  sin  of  many.” 
Corresponding  to  this  Paul  says — “Christ  was 
once  offered  to  bear  the  sins  of  many  :”  And  Peter 
— “  He  bare  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree.” 
To  hear  sin  or  iniquity  is  a  legal  phrase,  used  to 
express  the  just  punishment  of  sin,  as  is  evident 
from  the  manner  of  its  application  in  the  law  of 
Moses.  How  frequently  there  is  it  said  of  the 
transgressor,  “he  shall  bear  his  iniquity,”  where 
nothing  else  than  punishment  can  be  designed  ?  It 
is  manifest,  then,  from  this  single  argument,  that 
Christ  was  punished ;  and  it  is  equally  as  manifest 
that  he  was  not  punished  for  personal  sin,  for  he 
had  none,  but  for  the  sins  of  others.  Yes,  blessed 
truth!  “Messiah  was  cut  off,  but  not  for  him¬ 
self.”  “He  was  made  a  curse  for  us.”  “  He 
suffered,  the  just  for  the  unjust.”  This 


203 


single  instance  of  distinguished  punishment  en¬ 
tirely  overthrows  the  above  position  ;  and  hence, 
we  ask,  why  may  not  the  children  of  Adam  suffer 
punishment  for  a  sin,  which  is  not  personally 
theirs  ?  But  it  is  said,  for  the  sake  of  caution — 
even  if  Christ  ivas  punished  for  the  sin  of  others, 
it  was  with  his  own  consent ;  whereas  the  posterity 
of  Adam  have  never  consented  to  be  punished  for 
his  eating  of  the  forbidden  fruit.  Most  cheerfully 
do  we  admit,  that  Christ  suffered  the  punishment 
of  our  sins  with  his  own  consent ;  for  in  no  other 
way  could  he,  being  a  divine  person,  endure  suffer¬ 
ing  of  any  kind.  But  was  there  not  something, 
besides  his  own  consent,  requisite  in  order  to  ren¬ 
der  his  punishment  a  just  one  ?  Could  a  righteous 
judge  inflict  punishment  upon  an  innocent  person, 
merely  because  he  consented  to  it?  Would  such 
be  a  legal  punishment — a  punishment  demanded 
by  law?  or  would  it  not  be  a  mere  gratuitous 
punishment  ?  Ought  not  a  person  to  be  guilty,  in 
legal  reckoning ,  before  he  can  be  justly  punished, 
even  though  his  consent  were  obtained?  Accord¬ 
ingly,  Christ  not  only  consented  to  bear  the  punish¬ 
ment  of  the  sins  of  his  people,  but  to  bear  that 
punishment  in  their  law-room,  and  stead;  and 
hence,  in  consequence  of  that  consent,  agreement, 
or  stipulation,  those  sins  were  judicially  set  over 


204 


to  his  account,  or  imputed  to  him.  Therefore, 
Christ’s  being  punished  for  the  sins  of  his  people, 
his  representees,  with  his  own  consent,  is  so  far 
from  overthrowing  the  doctrine  of  Imputation,  that 
on  the  contrary,  it  greatly  tends  to  establish  it. 

But,  because  it  behooved  the  divine  Redeemer  to 
give  his  consent,  in  order  to  his  being  punished  for 
the  sins  of  his  people,  must  we,  therefore,  infer, 
that  God  cannot  justly  punish  mere  creatures, 
without  first  obtaining  their  permission  or  consent 
to  be  punished  ?  Must  his  infliction  of  punish¬ 
ment  depend  upon  such  an  improbable  circum¬ 
stance  ?  It  is  not  usual,  we  believe,  for  the  court 
to  ask  the  criminal,  convicted  of  a  capital  offense, 
whether  he  will  consent  to  be  hung;  but  hung  he 
shall  be,  whether  willing,  or  not ;  because  law  and 
justice  demand  it.  Now  the  case  before  us  stands 
thus, — Adam  sinned,  and  by  virtue  of  a  representa¬ 
tive  union,  all  his  posterity,  were  involved  in  his 
guilt ;  and  therefore,  God  ‘visits  that  guilt  upon 
them,  in  a  penal  manner,  without  condescending 
to  ask  their  consent.  And  we  are  not  of  those 
who  would  arraign  Him,  for  so  doing,  at  their  bar, 
or  who  would  say  unto  Him — u  What  doest  thou?  ” 

Besides,  where  is  the  difference,  in  point  of  jus¬ 
tice,  between  punishing  persons  for  a  sin,  which  is 
not  personally  theirs,  and  justifying  persons  on  ac- 


205 


count  of  deeds,  which  are  not  personally  theirs  ? 
But  sinners,  receiving  justification  before  God,  are 
not  justified  on  the  ground  .of  their  own  personal 
deeds — “  For  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh 
living  be  justified” — their  justification  is  wholly 
grounded  upon  the  good  deeds  performed  by  an¬ 
other,  even  their  representative,  Christ  Jesus,  the 
Lord.  Against  this  procedure  on  the  part  of  God, 
the  cry  of  injustice  may  be  raised  with  the  same 
propriety,  as  against  the  condemnation  of  men  for 
the  sin  of  their  representative.  A  righteous  judge 
will  know  no  difference  between  these  two  cases, 
so  far  as  the  principle  of  justice  is  concerned. 

Again,  if  God  may  not  ‘punish  for  acts,  which 
are  not  personal,  why  should  he  impute  acts,  which 
are  not  personal?  Some,  indeed,  deny  that  he 
ever  does  so,  but  this  only  shows  their  reckless 
disregard  of  the  word  of  God  :  For,  says  the  Apos¬ 
tle  Paul — “David  also  describeth  the  blessedness 
of  the  man  unto  whom  the  Lord  imputeth  righte¬ 
ousness  without  works.”  (Rom.  iv.  6.)  The 
righteousness,  here  said  to  be  imputed,  does  not 
consist  in  a  man’s  own  personal  acts,  for  it  is  a 
righteousness  without  ivorks  on  his  part,  but  in  the 
personal  acts  which  have  been  performed  by  an¬ 
other,  even  Jesus  Christ.  But  if  God  impute  a 
righteousness,  which  is  not  personal,  for  justifica- 

18 


206 


tion,  may  he  not  also  with  the  same  consistency, 
impute  a  sin,  which  is  not  personal  for  condemna¬ 
tion  ?  And  now,  we  ask,  where  is  the  difference, 
so  far  as  justice  is  concerned,  between  the  imputa¬ 
tion  of  an  act,  which  is  not  personal,  and  the  in¬ 
fliction  of  punishment  for  an  act,  which  is  not  per¬ 
sonal  1  We  leave  it  to  the  objectors  to  answer. 
And  from  what  has  been  stated,  the  candid  reader 
will  easily  discover  whose  doctrine  it  is,  that  in¬ 
volves  contradiction  and  absurdity,  and  militates 
with  the  justice  of  God. 

Sec.  3. — That  it  strips  Man  of  a  Free-will  and 
State  of  Probation ,  Answered. 

Our  doctrine  is  supposed  to  be  erroneous,  be¬ 
cause  it  destroys  man’s  free-ivill  and  consequently 
his  present  state  of  probation.  It  is  true,  the  doc¬ 
trine  we  maintain  does  all  this.  But  before  the 
objection  can  in  the  least  affect  it,  it  must  be 
proved,  not  from  common  sense ,  but  from  Scripture 
testimony,  that  unregenerated  men  do  possess  this 
free-will  and  are  placed  by  Jehovah  in  a  state  of 
probation.  By  a  free  will  is  here  meant  a  will 
equally  able  and  equally  inclined  to  choose  good 
as  well  as  evil ;  and  by  a  state  of  probation ,  such 
an  arrangement  of  God  concerning  fallen  men, 
that  their  eternal  condition  depends  upon  the  right 


207 


or  wrong  exercise  of  this  free-will.  Now,  we 
have  no  hesitation  in  declaring,  that  there  is  no 
such  doctrine  as  this  taught  in  the  whole  com¬ 
pass  of  divine  revelation — a  doctrine  entirely  sub¬ 
versive  of  all  Christian  hope. — We  know,  in¬ 
deed,  that  Adam  was  created  with  a  perfect  free¬ 
dom  of  will ;  that  is,  he  had  the  power  of  choosing 
to  do  good  or  evil,  just  as  he  saw  fit — he  could 
either  act  in  the  capacity  of  a  humble  worshipper 
and  servant  of  the  most  high  God,  or  he  could 
turn  rebel  and  enlist  in  the  service  of  the  old  Ser¬ 
pent — he  had  sufficient  power  to  have  stood  during 
the  whole  course  of  his  appointed  trial,  otherwise 
his  probation  would  have  been  a  mere  mockery, 
and  he  had  the  power  to  fall  from  his  allegiance, 
as  the  event  sadly  demonstrated.  It  is  true,  the 
Almighty,  who  created  him,  could  have  prevented 
his  fall — could,  by  the  continual  bestowment  of 
grace,  have  preserved  him  in  the  path  of  rectitude. 
But  it  is  also  true,  that  such  divine  procedure  would 
have  destroyed  every  thing  like  a  probationary 
state  ;  as  it  would  have  placed  Adam  in  a  state  of 
confirmation,  rather  than  in  a  state  of  trial,  where 
perfect  obedience,  performed  by  strength  already 
bestowed,  was  set  forth  as  the  condition  of  the 
everlasting  continuance  and  increased  enjoyment 
of  the  divine  favor,  both  to  himself  and  his  repre- 


208 


sented  posterity.  However,  when  Adam  sinned 
and  fell  from  his  primitive  glory,  his  state  of  pro¬ 
bation  came  to  an  end,  and  with  it  all  his  original 
freedom  of  will.  For  it  will  hardly  be  maintained, 
that  Adam  notwithstanding  his  fall  and  forfeiture 
of  the  divine  favor,  still  retained  the  same  power 
as  formerly  of  willing  what  was  acceptable  in  the 
sight  of  God  ;  especially  too,  when  it  is  remem¬ 
bered  that  he  lost  “the  image  of  God,”  and  was 
seized  with  a  spiritual  death. 

But  how  stands  the  case  with  his  descendants  1 
Do  they  possess  the  same  freedom  of  will,  that 
Adam  had  in  his  state  of  innocence  ?  And  are 
they,  therefore,  also  placed  in  a  state  of  probation  1 
Certainly  not.  This  would  be  a  dangerous  senti¬ 
ment  to  espouse — a  dangerous  principle  to  act  up¬ 
on.  Because,  by  placing  fallen  man  in  a  state 
of  probation,  you  virtually  deny  that  he  has 
sustained  any  loss  by  the  fall;  you  still  give 
him  the  moral  power  of  doing  good  as  well  as  evil 
— of  obeying  God  as  well  as  disobeying  him — of 
loving  as  well  as  hating  him  :  And  besides,  you 
overthrow  the  whole  system  of  grace,  exalt  hu¬ 
man  merit,  and  give  ground  for  boasting.  For,  if 
you  place  man  in  a  probationary  state,  if  you  mean 
any  thing,  you  mean  that  he  can  save  himself — 
that  he  can  fulfill  the  conditions  connected  with 


209 


that  state — that  he  can  attain  to  the  blessedness 
of  heaven,  otherwise  than  through  the  righteous¬ 
ness  of  our  God-man  Mediator;  and  when  you 
get  him  to  heaven,  you  most  effectually  seal  his 
lips  when  that  adoring  and  everlasting  thanksgiving 
song  passes  through  the  entire  circle  of  the  Re¬ 
deemed — “Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us 
from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood,  and  hath  made  us 
kings  and  priests  unto  God  and  his  Father  ;  to  him 
be  glory  and  dominion  for  ever  and  ever.” 

It  betrays,  therefore,  great  ignorance  of  the 
word  of  God  to  assert,  that  man  is  still  in  a  state 
of  probation — that  he  still  possesses  a  perfect  free¬ 
dom  of  will.  The  truth  is,  until  regenerated  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  he  has  no  power  nor  inclination 
to  do  any  thing,  that  is  holy  and  acceptable  in  the 
sight  of  God:  “To  do  good  he  has  no  know¬ 
ledge  “  Unto  every  good  work  he  is  reprobate 
“It  is  not  in  man  that  walketh  to  direct  his  steps 
1 ‘  Every  imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart 
is  only  evil  continually:”  “The  things  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  are  foolishness  to  him — and  he  can¬ 
not  know  them  :”  “  He  is  dead  in  trespasses  and 

sins — his  understanding  is  darkened — his  heart  is 
fully  set  in  him  to  do  evil — he  is  far  from  right¬ 
eousness — he  is  alienated  from  the  life  of  God.” 
What  then  becomes  of  the  boasted  free-will  of  the 

18* 


210 


spiritually  dead  sinner,  if  we  take  the  Scriptures 
for  our  guide  in  matters  of  faith?  Surely  a  free¬ 
dom  of  will  to  what  is  good  without  the  power  of 
willing  what  is  good,  is  an  absurdity,  a  contradic¬ 
tion.  But  the  scriptures  just  cited  teach,  as  plainly 
as  language  can  do,  that  fallen,  unregenerated 
man  possesses  no  power  to  will  what  is  good  and 
well  pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God.  Indeed,  if  he 
had  such  power,  hell  would  be  comparitively 
empty  ;  for  all,  unless  they  were  perfectly  dement¬ 
ed,  would  exert  their  free  will,  in  order  to  escape 
hell  and  secure  heaven  ;  since  it  is  written — “He 
that  believeth  shall  be  saved,  but  he  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  damned.” 

But  though  fallen  man  does  not  possess  the  free¬ 
dom  or  power  of  will  to  choose  and  pursue  what 
is  good,  he  possesses  it  to  choose  and  pursue  what 
is  evil.  Here  he  is  perfectly  free.  Every  sin  he 
commits  is  an  act  of  choice,  and  not  of  constraint : 
And  though  his  will  be- exclusively  inclined  to  the 
choice  of  evil,  no  compulsory  power  is  exerted 
upon  him — he  acts  with  the  greatest  liberty — he 
sins  because  it  is  his  pleasure  to  sin. 

Thus,  then  it  appears,  that  the  objection  is  based 
upon  a  false  assumption,  taking  that  for  granted 
which  has  no  foundation  in  truth ;  and  conse¬ 
quently  cannot  in  the  least  invalidate  the  doctrine, 


211 


which  asserts  the  entire  corruption  of  human  na¬ 
ture,  as  flowing  from  the  imputed  sin  of  Adam. 

Sec.  4. — That  it  divests  Man  of  the  Character  of 
a  Moral  Agent ,  Answered. 

The  doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  as  we  hold  it,  is 
represented  as  divesting  man  of  the  character  of 
a  moral  agent ;  because  it  places  him,  as  soon  as 
born,  under  a  sentence  of  condemnation,  ascribes 
to  him  a  corrupt  moral  nature,  and  withholds  from 
him  a  free-will.  Although  our  doctrine,  either 
directly  or  indirectly,  does  all  that  is  here  charged 
upon  it  in  the  premises,  we  nevertheless  contend, 
that  man  is  still  a  moral  agent  and  strictly  account¬ 
able  to  God  for  all  his  conduct.  But  we  deny  that 
a  free-will,  in  the  sense  before  explained,  is  neces¬ 
sary  to  constitute  a  moral  agent ;  or  that  the  con¬ 
demnation,  or  corruption  of  man  can  divest  him  of 
the  principle  of  moral  agency.  The  following  re¬ 
marks  of  the  Rev.  R.  Smith,  a  Scottish  divine  of 
the  last  century,  whose  name  has  already  been  in¬ 
troduced  to  the  reader,  fully  meet  the  present  ob¬ 
jection  and  destroy  all  its  force: — “Our  will  is 
naturally  set  upon,  and  bends  to  evil ;  yet  we  re¬ 
main  moral  agents.  Moral  agency  consists  in  act¬ 
ing  with  a  rational  choice.  An  act  is  moral  when 
it  proceeds  from  a  will  capable  of  rational  acting. 


212 


By  reason  of  what  is  it  that  man  is  allowed  to  be  a 
moral  agent,  when  it  is  refused  that  a  beast  is  such? 
Is  it  not,  that  the  power  of  choice  in  the  one,  is 
quite  diverse  from  that  power  in  the  other  ?  That 
by  which  man  chooses,  is  a  rational  will :  that  by 
which  the  beast  makes  choice,  is  instinct,  or  brutal 
appetite.  This  instinct  is  suited  unto  the  nature 
of  a  creature  without  reason :  the  human  will  is 
adapted  unto,  and  made  to  answer  a  creature  hav¬ 
ing  reason.  The  parts  or  shape  of  the  carcase  of 
any  beast,  do  not  more  differ  from  those  of  the 
body  of  a  man,  than  brutal  instinct,  and  a  human 
will  do.  Who  does  not  see  a  most  glaring  differ¬ 
ence  between  brutal  appetite,  and  rational  volition ! 
This  volition  lies  at  the  root  of  human  agency, 
therefore  it  must  be  moral ;  while  the  acting  is 
directed  by  a  rational  will,  it  must  be,  I  say,  mo¬ 
ral.  Now  the  rational  nature  of  the  will  does  not 
perish  in  the  sinner.  If  his  will  was  not  rational, 
he  would  cease  to  be  a  rational  being.  I  say,  I 
cannot  see  whence  the  morality  of  agency  takes 
its  rise,  if  it  spring  not  from  the  rationality  of  the 
agent.  It  is  not  from  the  moral  dispositions  in 
our  nature,  whether  good  or  bad,  that  we  are  moral 
agents  ;  but  it  is  from  the  rationality  of  our  nature. 
A  man  will  only  cease  to  be  a  moral  agent,  when 
he  is  strip!  of  a  rational  will. 


213 


“  I  have  said,  that  our  will  is  bended  by  sin,  but 
it  is  not  destroyed  by  it.  The  Jews  corrupted  the 
temple ;  but  the  Romans  destroyed  it.  Sin  de¬ 
praves  the  will  as  to  its  moral  disposition,  but  it 
does  not  strip  it  of  its  essential  form.  The  cor¬ 
ruption  of  our  nature  affects  the  will,  but  in  a  way 
suited  to  the  nature  thereof.  I  mean,  it  does  not 
destroy  the  being,  but  spoils  the  goodness  of  it. 
Man  becoming  a  sinner,  loses  no  part  of  his  na¬ 
ture  ;  neither  does  the  will  lose  any  part  of  its 
nature.  It  being  the  particular  nature  of  his  will 
that  renders  him  a  moral  agent,  that  nature  of  his 
will  continuing,  he  must  remain  such  an  agent. 

“It  is  worth  observing,  that  those  who  are 
against  us,  say,  that  a  person’s  will  may  be  biassed 
to  any  evil,  by  acquired  habits,  and  yet  remain  a 
moral  ageht.  Now,  since  one  remains  a  moral 
agent,  even  when  his  will  is  biassed  by  acquired 
habits,  what  is  to  hinder  his  being  an  agent  of  the 
same  sort  when  his  will  is  biassed  to  evil  from  the 
womb?  The  corruption  of  the  will  bends  it,  but 
does  not  break  it.  The  man  who  is  under  the  pow¬ 
er  of  uncleanness,  is  a  slave  to  it ;  his  will  is  bent 
to  it  so  that  he  cannot*  turn  his  back  on  that  lust, 
yet  we  will  not  say,  that  he  has  not  a  rational 
will.” 


214 


Sec.  5. — That  it  is  Contrary  to  the  Divine  De¬ 
claration,  that  11  the  Son  shall  not  bear  the  Ini¬ 
quity  of  the  Father Answered. 

It  is  seldom,  that  attempts  are  made  to  over¬ 
throw  the  doctrine  of  the  Imputation  of  Adam’s 
sin  to  his  posterity,  by  arguments  expressly  drawn 
from  the  word  of  God.  There  is  one  text,  how¬ 
ever,  which  the  enemies  of  this  doctrine  claim  in 
justification  of  their  opposition  to  it.  It  is  this — 
“  The  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die  :  The  son  shall 
not  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  father,  neither  shall 
the  father  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  son ;  the  right¬ 
eousness  of  the  righteous  shall  be  upon  him,  and 
the  wickedness  of  the  wicked  shall  be  upon  him.” 
(Ezk.  xviii.  20.)  But  a  little  attention  to  this  pas¬ 
sage,  viewed  in  its  connection,  is  sufficient  to  show, 
that  it  entirely  fails  to  answer  the  purpose  for 
which  it  is  adduced.  It  must  he  interpreted  in 
consistency  with  plain  and  acknowledged  facts. 
But  it  is  a  fact,  which  few  will  be  disposed  to  de¬ 
ny,  that  sometimes  God  does  visit  upon  children  the 
iniquities  of  their  fathers.  To  do  so,  he  claims  as 
his  sovereign  right,  a  right  which  he  will  never 
relinquish  ;  for  he  has  embodied  it  in  the  second 
precept  of  his  unchangeable  law — “I  am  a  jealous 
God,  visiting  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  upon  the 


215 


children,  unto  the  third  and  fourth  generation  of 
them  that  hate  me.”  And  that  he  has  exercised 
this  perogative  in  the  infliction  of  sore  judgments 
upon  children,  on  account  of  the  sins  of  their 
fathers  is  undeniable.  Witness  the  case  of  Achan’s 
children,  the  case  of  the  seven  sons  of  Saul,  and 
many  others  that  might  be  specified.  Nor  was 
this  principle  of  divine  government  peculiar  to  Old 
Testament  times ;  it  has  been  acted  on  since  the 
introduction  of  the  new  dispensation.  Says  Christ 
to  the  Jews — “Behold  I  send  unto  you  prophets 
and  wise  men  and  scribes  ;  and  some  of  them  ye 
shall  kill  and  crucify  ;  and  some  of  them  shall  ye 
scourge  in  your  synagogues,  and  persecute  them 
from  city  to  city  ;  that  upon  you  may  come  all 
the  righteous  blood  shed  upon  the  earth,  from  the 
blood  of  righteous  Abel  unto  the  blood  of  Zacha- 
rias,  son  of  Barachias,  whom  ye  slew  between  the 
temple  and  the  altar.”  (Matt,  xxiii.  34.  35.) — 
Hence  the  text  under  consideration  cannot  mean, 
that  the  iniquities  of  fathers  are  never  visited  upon 
children. 

Again,  what  was  the  case  of  the  Jews  in  Baby¬ 
lon,  who  are  addressed  in  the  chapter,  from  which 
the  objection  is  taken  ?  They  are  represented,  in 
the  second  verse,  as  using  the  proverb — “  The 
fathers  have  eaten  sour  grapes,  and  the  children’s 


216 

teeth  are  set  on  edge.”  Was  this  proverb  totally 
destitute  of  truth,  in  an  unperverted  application  of 
it  to  their  case?  No,  surely  :  For  they  were  now 
actually  enduring  evils  on  account  of  the  sins  of 
their  progenitors  of  a  former  age.  This  is  truly 
acknowledged  by  the  prophet  Jeremiah  in  his  La¬ 
mentations.  Personating  the  church  he  declares 
— “  Our  fathers  have  sinned,  and  are  not;  and  we 
have  borne  their  iniquities.”  This  confession  was 
unquestionably  made  under  the  influence  of  the 
Spirit  of  truth  and  piety.  Besides,  the  case  must 
have  been  so  ;  for  so  it  had  been  predicted,  with 
respect,  in  particular,  to  the  sins  of  Manasseh. — 
“I  will  cause  them  to  be  removed  into  all  king¬ 
doms  of  the  earth,  because  of  Manasseh,  the  son 
of  Hezekiah,  king  of  Judah,  for  that  which  he  did 
in  Jerusalem.”  (Jer.  xv.  4.  See  also  £  Kings,  xxi. 
10 — 16.)  It  is  undeniable,  then,  that  the  Jews  in 
Babylon  were  bearing  the  iniquities  of  their  fath¬ 
ers  ;  and  therefore,  that,  the  proverb  which  they 
used  was  not  wholly  destitute  of  truth,  in  respect 
to  their  miserable  condition.  Nevertheless  in  the 
sense,  in  which  they  used  the  proverb,  and  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  application  which  they  made  of  it,  it  had 
no  foundation  in  truth.  For  they  suppcsed  them¬ 
selves  to  be  entirely  innocent ;  and  that  the  evils, 
they  were  groaning  under,  had  befallen  them  ex- 


217 


dusively  on  account  of  the  sins  of  their  fathers* 
This  they  considered  very  hard  treatment.  And 
hence  they  reflected  on  the  equity  of  the  divine 
procedure  towards  them,  saying  “The  fathers  have 
eaten  sour  grapes,  and  the  children’s  teeth  are  set 
on  edge,” — the  prophets  have  told  us,  that  the 
flagitious  crimes,  committed  by  some  of  our  fore^ 
fathers,  would,  in  a  following  generation  be  visited 
upon  the  nation.  And  we  are  the  unfortunate  peo¬ 
ple,  on  whom  the  threatened  evil  has  fallen.  Yes 
our  fathers,  Manasseh  and  Amon,  and  those  living 
in  their  day,  were  abominable  transgressors  ;  and 
now,  poor,  innocent  we,  without  the  least  fault  to 
be  laid  to  our  charge,  have  to  bear  their  iniquities ! 
Now,  it  is  against  this  false  and  impious  view  of 
the  case,  that  Jehovah,  in  this  chapter,  is  found 
vindicating  the  ways  of  his  Providence.  And  we 
must  understand  him  in  his  vindication,  as  refer- 
ing  to  what  was  wrong  in  their  representation  of 
the  matter,  viz  :  that  they,  without  any  sin  in 
themselves,  were  suffering  on  account  of  their 
fathers’  sins.  This  he  expressly  denies.  Although 
he  does,  as  in  the  present  case,  visit  the  iniquities 
of  the  fathers  upon  the  children,  yet  it  is  not  with¬ 
out  the  consideration  of  sin  being  found  in  the 
children.  They  are  viewed  as  guilty  indepen-- 

dentlv  of  their  fathers'  sms.  Hence  “  The  soil 
«/ 

19 


218 


that  sinneth  it  shall  die  :  The  son  shall  not  bear 
the  iniquity  of  the  father,  neither  shall  the  father 
bear  the  iniquity  of  the  son.” 

Now  from  this  view  of  the  whole  case,  it  appears 
manifest,  that  this  scripture  is  very  far  from  assert¬ 
ing1,  that  Adam's  sin  is  not  imputed  to  his  posterity. 
He  is  certainly  not  to  be  reckoned  among  the  fath¬ 
ers  referred  to  by,  the  Jews, in  the  second  verse,  and 
consequently  he  is  not  referred  to  by  Jehovah,  in 
his  reply,  contained  in  the  words  of  the  objection. 
And  were  it  true,  (as  it  is  not,)  that  there  is  here 
an  express  denial,  that  the  persons  addressed  were 
in  any  sense  punished  for  the  sins  of  their  fathers, 
it  would  not  follow  that  Adam’s  posterity  were  not 
punished  for  his  sin.  For  the  argument  would 
only  amount  to  this — because  the  sins  of  one  part 
of  Adam’s  children  are  not  punished  on  another 
part  of  his  children,  therefore,  his  sin,  which  he 
as  a  representative  committed,  is  not  imputed  to 
his  representees.  Any  person  will  see  that  the 
conclusion  is  a  perfect  illegitimate.  But  should  it 
be  maintained,  that  Adam  is  included  among  the 
fathers  referred  to  in  this  passage,  and  consequent¬ 
ly  that  his  children  do  not  bear  his  iniquity  ;  we 
reply,  that  the  conclusion  is  not  admissible,  be¬ 
cause,  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  passage  and 
the  whole  word  of  God,  it  proceeds  on  the  assump- 


219 


tion  of  the  innocence  of  his  posterity.  But  their 
innocence  is  a  dream  :  Jehovah  views  them  as 
guilty  ;  yea,  as  having  sinned  in  Adam,  inasmuch 
as  he  was  their  representative,  at  the  time  he  sin¬ 
ned.  His  sin  is  imputed  to  them  as  being  virtu¬ 
ally  their  own  sin,  it  being  the  sin  of  their  federal 
representative. 

And  this  leads  to  the  remark,  that  the  passage 
from  which  the  objection  is  taken  furnishes  a 
strong  proof  in  favor  of  our  doctrine.  For  it  must 
be  acknowledged,  that  [God,  in  his  holy  Provi¬ 
dence,  does  visit  the  iniquities  of  fathers  upon  their 
children;  but,  according  to  the  Scripture  under 
consideration,  he  never  does  so  without  the  exis¬ 
tence  of  sin  in  the  children  themselves  ;  that  is,  he 
views  them  as  antecedently  guilty,  otherwise  he 
would  not  visit  upon  them  the  iniquities  of  their 
fathers.  Now  mere  infants  are  often  sufferers  on 
account  of  their  fathers’  transgressions.  When 
Jehovah,  according  to  his  threatening,  visited  the 
sins  of  Manasseh  upon  the  wicked  Jews,  their  little 
ones  were  involved  in  the  awful  calamity.  Jere¬ 
miah,  most  pathetically,  describes  the  wretched¬ 
ness  of  their  condition — “The  tongue  of  the  suck¬ 
ing  child  cleaveth  to  the  roof  of  his  mouth  for 
thirst ;  the  young  children  ask  bread  and  no  man 
.breaketb  it.  unto  them.  The  hands  of  the  pitiful 


220 


women  have  sodden  their  own  children,  they  were 
their  meat  in  the  destruction  of  the  daughter  of 
my  people.”  (Lam.  iv.  4.  10.)  Terrible  as  were 
the  sufferings  of  these  infants,  the  infliction  of 
them,  we  are  assured,  was  not  without  the  com- 
sideration  of  sin  being  found  in  themselves,  ante¬ 
cedently  to  all  consideration  of  the  sins  of  their 
fathers.  But  as  they  were  chargeable  with  no  actu¬ 
al,  personal  sins,  we  ask,  how  could  they  be  viewed 
as  guilty,  as  chargeable  with  transgression,  unless 
they  had  sinned  in  Adam,  and  were  regarded  as 
having  his  sin  imputed  to  them  ? 

Sec.  6 .—'jhat  it  makes  God  the  Author  of  Sin , 

Answered, 

A  very  grievous  charge  is  brought  against  our 
doctrine,  that  it  virtually  makes  God  the  author  of 
sin.  This  charge  is  utterly  groundless.  Those 
who  make  it,  “understand  neither  what  they  say, 
nor  whereof  they  affirm,”  Surely  to  impute  sin  is 
a  very  different  thing  from  being  the  author  of  it. 
Tire  imputation  of  sin  is  the  act  of  a  judge  declar¬ 
ing,  that  the  sin  already  exists.  The  representa¬ 
tive  of  the  human  family  sinned,  and  God  judi¬ 
cially  reckons  his  sin  to  be  the  sin  of  his  repre¬ 
sentees  :  Is  this  to  make  God  the  author  of  that  sin? 
Then  the  judge,  in  reckoning  the  criminal  to  be 


221 


guilty,  becomes  the  author  of  his  guilt !  And  as 
to  “oritrinal  sin  inherent,”  so  far  as  God  has  anv 
agency  in  it,  we  hold,  that  it  is  strictly  a  punish¬ 
ment  on  account  of  the  imputed  sin  of  our  repre¬ 
sentative.  But  surely  to  punish  sin  is  a  very  dif¬ 
ferent  thing  from  being  the  author  of  it :  Other¬ 
wise  the  judge  would  be  the  author  of  all  the 
crimes,  which  he,  as  the  executor  of  the  law,  finds 
it  to  be  his  indispensible  duty  to  punish.  More¬ 
over,  if  in  the  infliction  of  just  punishment  the 
criminal  be  placed  in  a  condition  involving  the  ne¬ 
cessity  of  sinning,  even  this  necessity  is  a  part  of 
his  punishment  and  arises  wholly  from  his  own 
fault.  Hence  the  judge  is  not  only  just  in  inflict¬ 
ing  the  punishment,  but  is  also  free  from  all  blame 
-of  the  authorship  of  the  sinful  consequences  aris¬ 
ing  from  that  punishment.  These  few  hints  are 
sufficient  to  show  that  our  doctrine  is  infinitely 
above  the  reach  of  the  objection.  And  we  hazzard 
nothing  in  saying,  that  there  is  no  other  view  taken 
in  respect  of  Original  Sin,  against  which  the  ob¬ 
jection  may  not  be  urged  with  far  greater  propriety. 
For  instance,  let  the  New  Haven  School  defend 
their  own  system  against  this  objection,  when  they 
tell  us,  that  our  first  acts  as  moral  agents  are  ne¬ 
cessarily  sinful  ones,  in  consequence  of  Adam’s  sin, 
and  by  a  feed  constitution  of  God  ! 

19* 


222 


Sec.  7. —  That  it  is  Inconsistent  with  the  Command¬ 
ments  of  Cod ,  Answered. 

According  to  the  view,  we  have  taken  of  Origi¬ 
nal  Sin,  mankind  have  no  power  to  obey  the  com¬ 
mandments  of  God  ;  but  it  is  objected,  that  the 
very  fact  of  their  being  still  required  to  obey,  im¬ 
plies  the  possession  of  the  requisite  power,  and 
consequently,  that  our  view  of  the  doctrine  must 
be  incorrect.  In  the  preceeding  pages,  we  at¬ 
tempted  to  prove,  with  what  success  the  reader 
may  judge,  that  mankind  are  punished  with  the 
loss  of  ability  to  keep  God’s  law,  on  account  of 
the  sin  of  their  federal  head.  The  present  objec¬ 
tion,  therefore,  only  lies  against  that  particular 
argument.  If,  however,  what  is  asserted  in  the 
objection  were  true,  we  should  feel  disposed  to 
relinquish  the  whole  doctrine.  But  is  it  true,  be¬ 
cause  God  enjoins  duties  upon  men,  that,  therefore, 
they  must  possess  the  power  to  perform  them? 
O  yes,  cries  the  objector  ;  for  if  they  had  not  this 
power,  God  would  be  dealing  unfairly  and  unjustly 
in  demanding  obedience  of  them, even  as  it  would 
be  cruel  and  unjust  for  a  master  to  command  his 
servant,  who  had  lost  his  limbs,  to  arise  and  walk 
and  perform  some  impossible  service !  The  objec- 
thn  simply  amounts  to  this,  God  must  always  meas- 


A  - 


223 


ure  his  commands  by  the  creature's  ability  to  obey 
them.  And  if  the  creature  has  lost  all  ability  to 
obey  holy  precepts,  then  he  must  receive  such  as 
are  unholy  ;  for,  it  seems,  it  would  be  cruelly  un¬ 
just  to  cross  his  inclination  and  insult  his  corrup¬ 
tion  with  such  as  are  holy  !  To  suit  his  particular 
exigency,  the  old  precepts  of  the  divine  law  must  be 
expunged  and  new  ones,  more  congenial  to  his  na¬ 
ture  and  more  within  his  power  to  obey,  inserted  ; 
such  as  the  following, — Thou  shalt  hate  God  ; 
thou  shalt  hate  thy  neighbor;  thou  shalt  Jove  sin; 
thou  shalt  serve  the  devil,  kc. !  But  if  it  be  im¬ 
possible  for  the  Holy  One  to  give  such  commands 
as  these,  it  is  also  impossible  for  him  to  abdicate 
his  throne  and  retire  from  the  moral  government 
of  man.  How  then  is  he  to  act  ?  Precisely  as 
he  has  done — to  give  holy  prcepts,  even  though 
man  has  lost  his  abilty  for  obedience.  For  surely 
this  loss  on  the  part  of  man,  which  was  occasioned 
by  sin,  cannot  cancel  Jehovah’s  right  still  to  claim 
obedience,  as  the  moral  governor  of  the  world. 

Now,  that  the  commands  of  God  do  not  imply 
the  power  of  obedience  in  those  to  whom  they  are 
addressed,  is  evident  from  this,  that  the  perform¬ 
ance  of  the  things  commanded  is  ascribed  to  God 
himself.  For  example,  the  sinner  is  commanded  to 
“make  himself  a  new  heart ;”  but  this  is  the  work 


224 


of  God — “  The  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thine 
heart” — u  A  new  heart  will  I  give  you.”  Again, 
the  sinner  is  commanded  to  “awake  from  the  dust 
and  arise  from  the  dead ;”  but  this  spiritual  resur¬ 
rection  is  the  work  of  God — “  You  hath  he  quick¬ 
ened  who  were  dead  in  tresspasses  and  sins.” 
Examples  of  this  kind  are  numerous  and  do  fully 
establish  the  want  of  power  in  fallen  man  to  “do 
the  commandments  of  God.”  Nor  can  we  per¬ 
ceive  any  inconsistency  in  God’s  requiring  of  apos¬ 
tate  sinners  what  they  are  unable  to  perform, 
which  may  not  equally  be  objected  against  our 
Saviour’s  commanding  the  marl  with  the  wither ed 
hand  “to  stretch  it  forth  or  the  impotent  man 
“  to  arise  and  take  up  his  bed  and  walk  or  the 
dead  man  lying  in  the  grave  “  to  come  forth.” 
These  commands  may  be  charged  with  inconsis¬ 
tency,  with  as  much  propriety  as  those  contem¬ 
plated  by  the  objection,  since  there  was  no  ability 
in  the  subjects  of  them  for  the  performance  of 
what  was  required. 

Once  more,  among  the  commands  laid  on  fallen 
men,  we  find  one  enjoining  'perfection .  “Be  ye 
perfect,  even  as  your  Father,  who  is  in  heaven,  is 
perfect.”  (Matt.  v.  48.)  Does  this  command  im¬ 
ply,  that  we  possess  the  power  of  becoming  as 
perfect  as  God  ?  Few,  even  of  the  objectors,  will 


225 


have  the  presumption  to  affirm  it.  Their  whole  ob¬ 
jection,  then,  falls  to  the  ground.  And,  by  the 
way,  we  have  witnessed  a  most  singular  inconsis¬ 
tency  in  some  of  the  divines,  who  follow  in  the 
wake  of  the  New  Haven  School.  They  zealously 
taught  their  hearers,  that  they  could  regenerate 
themselves  ;  for  God  had  commanded  them  to 
“make  to  themselves  a  new  heart,”  which  he 
never  would  have  done,  were  they  not  in  posses¬ 
sion  of  the  requisite  power.  Some  believed  them, 
and  finding  moreover  that  they  were  also  com¬ 
manded  to  be  perfect ,  which  implied,  according  to 
their  teachers,  that  they  could  do  so,  they  went  to 
work  and  actually  became  perfect,  as  they  sup¬ 
posed.  But  behold,  these  perfect  ones  were  soon 
ex-communicated  by  those  who  had  bewildered 
them!  And  for  what  reason?  Just,  because,  they 
were  simple  enough  to  believe  their  ministers  and 
to  act  agreeably  to  their  instructions  !  Now  this 
glaring  inconsistency  on  the  part  of  the  teachers, 
and  this  horrible  delusion  on  the  part  of  the  taught, 
help  to  show,  how  groundless  is  the  assertion  con¬ 
tained  in  the  objection,  and  consequently,  that  our 
argument  remains  unaffected  by  it. 


226 


Sec.  8. — That  it  Contradicts  the  very  Nature  of 

Sin  which  Consists  in  Voluntary  Action ,  An¬ 
swered. 

Another  objection,  paraded  forth  with  great  con¬ 
fidence,  is,  that  “  all  sin  consists  in  voluntary  ac¬ 
tion.”  Now  were  it  true,  that  all  sin  consisted  in 
voluntary  action,  or  proceeded  from  an  exercise  of 
the  will,  our  doctrine  would  shake  to  its  very  foun¬ 
dation.  But  this  assertion  is  not  true.  It  is  so 
far  from  being  true,  that  all  sin  consists  in  action , 
that  much  of  it  consists  in  a.  want  of  action.  This, 
we  think,  will  hardly  be  disputed,  after  mature  re¬ 
flection.  And  that  all  sinful  action  must  be  volun¬ 
tary,  or  flow  from  an  exercise  of  the  will,  is  what 
can  never  be  admitted.  Surely  an  act  of  the  will 
is  not  necessary  in  order  to  originate  evil  desires 
in  the  heart.  These  naturally  arise  from  a  false 
and  distorted  conception  of  things,  and  not  im¬ 
mediately  from  an  exercise  of  the  will ;  because, 
instead  of  being  obedient  to  the  will,  they  govern 
the  will.  Nay,  are  there  no  sinful  motives ,  which 
influence  the  will  and  guide  it  in  its  operations  ? 
Or  is  there  no  such  thing  as  sinful  motives  ?  Or 
will  the  absurdity  be  maintained,  that  motives  de¬ 
fend  on  an  exercise  of  the  will  ?  Indeed  it  is  un¬ 
questionable,  that  evil  desires ,  sinful  motives  and 


X 


227 


unholy  thoughts  may  arise  even  in  the  soul  of  a  be- 
liever,  when  his  will  stands  in  opposition  to  them. 
But  though  they  are  thus  involuntary,  the  believer 
views  them  as  real  violations  of  “the  command¬ 
ment  which  is  exceeding  broad.”  Hence  his  lan¬ 
guage — “  The  evil  that  I  would  not,  that  do  I.” 

Again,  the  word  of  God  teaches  us,  that  the 
neglect  of  an  unknown  duty  is  a  sin.  The  law  of 
God,  which  is  perfect,  requires  of  all  its  subjects 
a  knowledge  of  all  the  duties  which  it  prescribes. 
Yet  through  ignorance  of  those  duties,  they  be¬ 
come  in  many  instances  neglected.  But  all  such 
neglect  is  involuntary ;  for  it  cannot  be  said  with 
any  propriety,  that  a  person  voluntarily  neglects 
to  perform  a  duty,  of  which  he  is  entirely  igno¬ 
rant  :  Nevertheless  such  neglect  is  sinful.  For, 
persons,  under  the  law,  offending  in  this  manner, 
were  required  to  present  a  sin-offering  to  the  Lord 
to  make  atonement  for  their  souls.  (Num.  xv.  27.) 
It  is  very  far,  then,  from  being  a  universal  truth, 
that  “  all  sin  consists  in  voluntary  action.”  And, 
therefore  the  objection  has  no  weight,  when  urged 
against  the  doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  whether  im¬ 
puted  or  inherent .* 

*  See  Chap,  iii.,  Sec.  9,  and  Notes  pp.  158  178. 


228 


Sec.  9. — Tiie  Objection ,  that  Original  Sin  cannot 
be  Repented  of,  Answered. 

The  last  objection,  that  we  consider  worthy  of 
notice,  as  made  to  the  doctrine,  which  we  have 
been  endeavoring  to  defend,  is,  that  Original  Sin 
is  something  which  cannot  be  repented  of,  and 
consequently  is  no  sin.  To  this  objection  we  op¬ 
pose,  as  a  sufficient  reply,  the  following  extract 
from  a  Sermon  on  Original  Sin,  by  Dr.  Thomas 
Goodwin,  a  divine  of  distinguished  learning  and 
piety,  belonging  to  the  puritanic  school : 

“We  may,  from  what  has  been  said,  take  an 
affecting  view  of  our  state  and  condition  by  na¬ 
ture  :  And  as  it  is  useful  for  us  all,  even  those  that 
are  by  grace  delivered  from  it,  to  be  looking  to  it ; 
so  it  is  necessary  for  them  that  are  under  it  to  be 
fully  acquainted  with  it.  It  is,  at  once,  a  state 
full  of  guilt,  and  a  state  full  of  corruption  and  de¬ 
filement  :  We  are  all  of  us  guilty  before  God, 
having  the  guilt  of  the  first  sin  righteously  imput¬ 
ed  to  us  ;  and  this  renders  us  obnoxious  to  the  di¬ 
vine  displeasure  :  and  we  are  all  polluted  and  un¬ 
clean,  having  corrupted  and  defiled  natures  derived 
to  us.  A  spiritual  leprosy  has  overspread  all  our 
powers  and  faculties,  and  this  renders  us  loatlie- 
some  to  God,  and  puts  us  in  a  state  of  separation 


229 


from  him.  What  a  fearful  change  has  sin  made 
in  us!  The  soul,  that  was  made  in  the  image  of 
God,  is  stript  of  its  native  righteousness  and  holi¬ 
ness,  and  invested  with  contrary  qualities  : — 
“There  is  as  great  a  difference,  says  one,  between 
the  corruption  of  the  soul  in  its  degenerate  state, 
and  its  primitive  purity,  as  between  the  loathsome¬ 
ness  of  a  dead  carcase,  and  the  beauty  of  a  living 
body.”  Sad  change  indeed  !  and  to  be  lamented 
\vith  tears  of  confusion  :  How  should  this  humble 
us  before  God,  and  hide  pride  forever  from  our 
eyes  ?  How  should  it  fill  us  with  self-loathing  and 
self-abhorrence,  affect  our  souls  with  shame  and 
sorrow,  and  cause  us  to  repent  in  dust  and  ashes  ? 
especially  when  we  repent  of  and  confess  our  actu¬ 
al  transgressions,  we  should,  in  the  first  place, 
confess  and  bewail  this  coffupt  fountain  of  them  : 
So  does  David  in  my  text.  This  Psalm  is  record¬ 
ed  as  a  public  testimony  to  the  church,  and  the 
world,  of  his  repentance  of  a  great  sin ;  and,  we 
see,  he  does,  in  a  particular  manner,  bewail  and 
acknowledge  this.  And  so  did  the  church  in 
Isaiah’s  prophecy,  (Isa.  lxiv.  6.)  When  they  hum¬ 
bled  themselves,  they  not  only  acknowledged  that 
their  righteousness  was  as  a  menstruous  filthy  rag , 
but  they  chiefly  complained  of  the  uncleanness  of 

20 


9 


then  persons,  and  that  with  respect  to  their  na  ¬ 
tures  ;  H  c  are  all  as  an  unclean  thing. 

“1  am  sensible  some  have  made  it  a  question, 
Whether  we  ought  to  repent  of  and  be  humbled 
for  our  original  sin  ?  But  as  the  practice  of  the 
church,  and  the  penitent  Psalmist,  in  my  text, 
shews  they  made  no  question  of  it,  so  we  might 
evince,  from  many  considerations,  that  this  is  a 
just  ground  of  our  repentance  and  humiliation.  I 
will  only  mention  one,  and  that  is,  that  this  is  not 
only  a  sin  in  itself,  but  the  fruitful  parent  of  all 
other  sins :  That  it  is  a  misery,  all  grant,  who 
acknowledge  the  thing  itself;  but  that  it  is  also 
properly  a  sin,  appears,  I  think,  sufficiently  from 
the  apostle  John’s  definition-,  who  makes  the  for¬ 
mality  of  sin  to  consist  in  its  opposition  to  the  law', 

( 1 .  J ohn  iii.  4. )  “  Sin  is  a  transgression  of  the  law.” 
Whatever  is  contrary  to  the  law  of  God,  and  forbid 
in  it,  is  a  sin ;  but  the  corruption  of  our  nature  is 
forbid  in  the  law,  and  contrary  to  what  God  re¬ 
quires  therein  :  God  requires  “truth  in  the  inward 
part  but  original  corruption  is  the  want,  or 
rather  the  reverse  of  this.  We  are  commanded 
to  be  holy ,  and  that  not  only  in  our  actions,  but  in 
our  natures,  for  we  are  commanded  to  be  “holy 
as  God  is  holy and  so  the  want  of  holiness,  which 
is  the  privative  part  of  this  sin,  is  forbid  :  We  are 
moreover  commanded  to  “love  the  Lord  cur  God, 


*231 


with  all  our  heart  and  so  the  heart’s  inclination 
to  hate  God,  which  is  the  positive  part  of  this  sin,  is 
forbid  :  In  a  word,  there  is  in  it  a  non-conformity  to 
the  whole  law  of  God  ;  and  a  nonconformity  to,  is 
a  transgression  of  the  whole  law.  If  therefore  the 

o 

apostle’s  definition  is  just,  the  corruption  of  our 
nature  is  a  sin ;  and  accordingly  it  is  frequently 
called  so  in  scripture,  and  acknowledged  and  con¬ 
fessed  as  such,  by  the  saints,  both  in  the  Old  and 
New  Testament :  So  it  is  by  David  in  our  text ; 
and  so  it  is  by  the  apostle  Paul,  who  bewailed  and 
aggravated  it  exceedingly,  (Rom.  vii.)  He  not 
only  complains  of  it  as  a  misery,  but  he  confesses 
and  bewails  it  as  a  sin  ;  and  lest  we  should  think 
it  a  small  peccadillo,  a  sin  of  an  ordinary  size,  he 
calls  it  a  sin  exceedingly ,  hyperbolically,  sinful. 

“  Against  this  it  is  frequently  objected  ;  it  is  not 
a  sin,  because  it  is  not  voluntary  :  But  should  we 
admit  this  rule,  that  whatever  is  not  voluntary  is 
not  a  sin,  to  be  just,  which  will  not  hold  true  uni¬ 
versally,  and  without  limitation,  even  when  applied 
to  actual  sins;  yet  natural  corruption  is  voluntary 
in  some  respects  ;  it  is  voluntary  in  its  principle 
and  cause  :  As  it  was  voluntarily  contracted  by 
Adam,  so  he  therein  being  our  federal  head  and  re¬ 
presentative,  his  will  was  the  will  of  us  all :  But 
this  is  not  all,  for  this  corruption  is  inherent  in  the 


232 


will,  as  its  subject.  If  Adam  had  derived  a  bodily 
disease  only  to  his  posterity,  it  might  have  been  an 
involuntary  evil,  because  the  diseases  of  the  body 
may  be  foreign  to  the  soul  :  But  when  the  corrup¬ 
tion  invades  the  internal  faculties,  it  is  denominat¬ 
ed  from  the  subject  wherein  it  is  seated.  What 
though  it  does  not  proceed  originally  from  any  act 
of  the  will  in  us?  yet  the  consent  of  the  will  ac¬ 
companies  it,  or  rather  it  is  itself  the  natural  bias 
or  inclination  of  the  will  to  evil,  and  therefore  to 
say  that  it  is  altogether  involuntary,  is  no  less 
than  a  contradiction,  However,  it  is,  to  be  sure, 
voluntary  in  us,  with  respect  to  an  after-consent, 
and  in  the  effects  of  it :  Who  amongst  us  can  say, 
We  never  consented  to  our  natural  corruption, 
were  never  well-pleased  with  it,  never  cherished 
it  by  occasions  of  sin,  never  strengthened  it  by 
acts  of  sin,  and  never  resisted  the  means  whereby 
it  should  be  mortified  and  subdued  ?  All  which  are 
evidences  of  an  actual  consent.  Now,  if  it  is  a 
sin,  we  ought  to  repent  of  it,  and  be  humbled  for 
it ;  for  that  we  ought  to  be  thus  affected  to,  and 
by  every  sin,  no  one  will  deny.  And  this  would 
further  appear,  if  I  could  shew  that  this  is  not 
only  a  sin  in  itself,  but  the  fruitful  parent  of  all 
other  sins :  But,  having  hinted  nt  this  before,  1 
must  not  enlarge  upon  it  now.’' 


233 


The  pious  author  of  the  foregoing-  extract,  relat¬ 
ing  the  circumstances  connected  with  his  conver¬ 
sion  and  particularly  his  strong  natural  bias  to 
Arminian  principles,  thus  speaks,  in  his  Memoirs, 
of  his  own  experience  concerning  the  truth  of 
Original  Sin  : 

“But  next  I  was  brought  to  enquire  into,  and 
consider,  what  should  have  been  the  original  cause, 
at  the  bottom  of  this  fore-mentioned  sinfulness, 
both  in  my  heart  and  life.  And  after  I  had  well 
debated  with  myself,  that  one  place,  (Rom.  v. 
12:)  “By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world, 
and  death  by  sin  ;  and  so  death  passed  upon  all 
men,  for  that  all  have  sinned  :  that  is,  in  whom ,  or 
in  that  all  have  sinned ;  meaning,  that  it  was  in 
him  they  all  sinned  ;  for  they  had  not,  in  and  of 
themselves,  committed  any  actual  transgression 
(as  those  that  die  infants)  after  the  similitude  of 
Adam’s  transgression.  Which  limitation  is  cau¬ 
tiously  there  added  by  the  Apostle  to  shew,  that 
they  had  not  actually  sinned  of  themselves,  but 
were  simply  involved  in  his  act  of  sinning.  This 
caused  me  necessarily  to  conceive  thus  of  it,  that 
it  was  the  guilt,  or  demerit,  of  that  one  man’s  diso¬ 
bedience,  that  corrupted  my  nature.  Under  such 
like  apprehensions  as  these,  did  my  spirit  lie  con¬ 
victed  so  strongly  of  this  great  truth,  that  being 

20* 


r 


234 


(rone  to  bed  some  hours  before,  and  filled  with  these 
meditations,  I  in  the  end  of  all  rose  out  of  bed  being- 
alone,  and  solemnly  fell  down  on  my  knees  before 
God  the  Father  of  all  the  family  in  heaven,  and 
did  of  my  own  accord  assume  and  take  on  me  the 
guilt  of  that  sin,  as  truly  as  any  of  my  own  actu¬ 
al  sins 


235 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE  CONCLUSION. 

Having,  as  we  believe,  fully  established  the 
truth  of  the  important  doctrine,  had  under  con¬ 
sideration,  and  removed  the  principal  objections 
that  have  been  urged  against  it,  we  shall  now  con¬ 
clude  the  discussion  by  making  a  few  practical  re¬ 
flections  :  And — 

1.  The  subject  discussed  should  lead  to  a  pious 
contemplation  of  the  sovereign  authority  of  God. 
Man,  in  his  innocence,  was  soon  given  to  under¬ 
stand  that  the  Author  of  his  being  was  a  sovereign, 
possessed  of  authority,  absolute  and  uncontrol¬ 
lable.  And  there  was  a  noble  congruity  in  this. 
For,  without  being  fully  penetrated  with  such  a 
practical  conviction,  he  was  in  danger  of  regard¬ 
ing  himself  as  independent.  Hence,  he  received  a 
very  lively  display  of  sovereign  authority,  on  the 
part  of  the  Lord  God,  in  the  positive  precept  given 
him  respecting  “the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of 
good  and  evil and  also  in  the  fact  of  hig  being 
constituted  the  moral,  representing  head  of  all  his 
posterity.  In  the  former  case,  a  thing,  in  itself  to¬ 
tally  indifferent,  was  made  the  test  of  man’s  fealty 
to  his  Lord  ;  in  the  latter,  a  relation  of  a  super¬ 
natural  order,  such  as  had  no  foundation  in  nature, 


23  G 

was  established.  And  neither  the  one  nor  the 
other  could  be  impugned  as  unreasonable.  F or  the 
■  sovereign  authority  of  God  was  equally  the  foun¬ 
dation  of  both.  And  the  mere  will  of  God,  how¬ 
ever  manifested,  whether  in  the  giving  of  precepts, 
or  in  the  constitution  of  relations,  is  an  all-suffi- 
cient  reason  for  the  existence  of  the  thing,  and 
should  eternally  silence  all  the  cavils  of  the  crea¬ 
ture  and  command  his  most  implicit  obedience  and 
faith.  Hence,  the  divine  procedure,  in  relation  to 
holy  Adam,  could  not  fail  to  discover  to  him  the 
sovereign  and  absolute  supremacy  of  his  Maker, 
and  teach  him  his  own  dependence,  duty  and  in¬ 
terest.  And  a  consideration  of  that  procedure 
should  still  have  the  same  effect  upon  us.  In  our 
fallen  condition  we  eminently  need  to  be  impressed 
with  a  sense  of  the  sovereign  authority  of  the 
Lord  our  God.  This  is  necessary,  in  order,  not 
only  to  secure  our  obedience  to  him,  but  also  to 
lead  us  to  acquiesce  in  those  ways  of  his,  which,  the 
short-sightedness  of  human  reason  cannot  pene¬ 
trate.  Accordingly,  let  every  whisper  of  carnal 
reason  against  the  performance  of  any  commanded 
duty,  or  against  the  belief  of  any  supernaturally 
revealed  truth,  be  hushed  into  perpetual  silence 
by  the  thunder  of  Jehovah’s  word — uBe  still  and 
know,  that  I  am  Gor>.’; 


; 


237 


2.  In  the  federal  headship  of  Adam,  we  may  see 
a  display  of  the  goodness  of  God.  Considering 
the  infinite  distance  necessarily  intervening  be¬ 
tween  the  Creator  and  the  creature,  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  a  covenant  with  man  and  dealing  with 
him,  in  a  pactional  manner,  about  his  eternal  hap¬ 
piness,  was  surely,  on  the  part  of  the  Most  High, 
an  astonishing  act  of  goodness  and  condescension. 
This  was  conferring  a  dignity  on  man,  to  which 
he  had  no  claim  ;  and  exalting  him  to  a  fellow¬ 
ship  with  heaven,  to  which,  otherwise,  he  could 
not  have  aspired.  But  the  divine  goodness  was 
no  less  strikingly  displayed  in  the  representative 
character,  with  which  Adam  was  invested  in  that 
federal  transaction.  Thereby  all  his  posterity 
were  taken  upon  trial  in  him.  And  hence  in  that 
supernatural  investiture,  the  goodness  of  God  was 
displayed  both  towards  him  and  all  his  represented 
posterity, — towards  him,  as  it  held  forth  the  most 
powerful  motives  to  obedience,  and  as  it  guaran¬ 
teed  to  his  obedience  alone  a  reward,  which  would 
redound  to  the  eternal  happiness  of  countless 
millions, — towards  his  posterity,  as  their  immortal 
interests,  from  the  nature  of  things,  would  be 
more  secure  in  the  hands  of  such  a  representative, 
than  if  placed  in  their  own.  They  were  to  be 
brought  into  existence  in  a  state  of  infancy  ;  he 


238 


was  created  in  a  state  of  perfect  manhood.  He, 
therefore,  was  better  qualified  for  the  management 
of  their  concerns,  than  they  would  have  been 
themselves.  True,  indeed,  he  failed  in  keeping 
the  covenant,  but  this  only  shows  the  greater 
certainty  of  their  failure,  had  they,  as  successively 
brought  into  being,  been  placed  upon  trial  in  their 
own  persons.  And  for  aught  we  know,  in  this 
latter  state  of  things,  it  might  have  been  inconsis¬ 
tent  with  the  divine  government  to  have  admitted 
the  interposition  of  a  Mediator — such  gracious  in¬ 
terposition  having  found  no  place  in  the  case  of 
the  apostate  angels,  whose  fall  from  their  first  es¬ 
tate  was  not  owing  to  the  disobedience  of  a  repre¬ 
sentative.  Hence,  so  far  from  regarding  the  fede- 
ral  headship  of  the  first  man,  as  an  evil,  a  hardship , 
we  ought  to  consider  it,  as  unfolding  a  bright  dis¬ 
play  of  the  infinite  condescension  and  goodness  of 
the  High  and  lofty  One,  who  has  heaven  for  his 
throne  and  earth  for  his  footstool. 

3.  In  the  federal  headship  of  Adam  we  see  also 
a  complete  vindication  of  the  justice  and  holiness 
of  God,  in  his  inflicting*  sufferings  upon  infants. 
There  is  scarcely  any  circumstance  connected  with 
the  lot  of  man,  more  painful,  in  its  nature,  than 
the  sufferings  of  infants.  It  is  acknowledged,  that 
these  sufferings  come  not  of  themselves,  but  are 


239 


inflicted  by  the  God  of  Providence.  They  often 
arise,  and  they  necessarily  arrest  the  attention  of 
the  thoughtful.  But  how  are  they  to  be  reconciled 
with  the  justice  and  holiness  of  God?  The  solu¬ 
tion  of  this  question  is,  in  particular,  deeply  inter¬ 
esting-  and  important  to  the  believer.  It  would 
greatly  mar  his  Christian  peace  and  comfort  of 
mind,  were  he  here  left  to  grope  his  way  through 
a  labyrinth  of  doubt  and  painful  conjecture.  But 
God  has  not  relinquished  him  to  darkness  and  wild 
speculation,  on  a  subject  so  deeply  interesting. 
Pie  has  revealed  a  sufficient  reason  to  justify  his 
character  and  the  acts  of  his  Providence  in  the  in¬ 
fliction  of  infantile  suffering — “  By  the  offense  of 
one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemna¬ 
tion.”  “As  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
world,  and  death  by  sin,  even  so  death  passed  upon 
all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned.”  “Behold  I  was 
shapen  in  iniquity  j  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  con 
ceive  me” — Hence,  infants,  in  their  sufferings,  are 
not  to  be  regarded  as  innocent :  their  sufferings 
are  not  inflicted  in  an  arbitrary  manner :  they  are 
truly  sinners — their  representative  sinned,  and 
they  in  him  :  his  sin  is  justly,  in  virtue  of  the  re¬ 
presentative  union,  reckoned  to  their  account  ; 
and  one  fruit  of  this  is  the  corruption  of  their 
nature,  and  another  the  sufferings  which  they  en- 


240 


dure.  But  overlook  the  representative  character 
of  Adam  and  the  consequent  imputation  of  his  sin 
to  his  posterity,  and  you  cannot  satisfactorily  ac¬ 
count  for  the  sufferings  and  death  of  your  infants, 
nor  vindicate  the  justice  and  holiness,  of  your 
God. 

4.  The  subject  teaches  us  the  unspeakable  loss 
mankind  have  sustained  by  the  fall  of  Adam.  We 
know,  it  is  not  congenial  to  the  pride  of  the  hu¬ 
man  heart  to  admit,  that  any  damage  has  been  in¬ 
curred  by  the  fall*  Vain  man  would  still  arrogate 
to  himself  all  the  dignity  and  glory  that  belonged 
to  the  primitive  state.  But  his  boast  is  groundless 
and  vain.  It  is  far  otherwise  than  he  imagines. 
In  the  light  of  divine  truth,  and  in  perfect  con¬ 
sonance  with  the  dictates  of  experience,  we  learn, 
that  the  fall  of  Adam  has  affected  the  most  grie¬ 
vous  loss — a  loss  sufficient  to  make  angels  weep. 
By  that  dismal  event  our  nature  has  been  stripped 
of  its  original  glory — We  have  lost  the  image  of 
God  ;  we  have  lost  the  most  delightful  communion 
with  God  ;  we  have  lost  that  innocence  and  riodit- 
eousness  and  immortality  that  were  primitive  with 
our  nature ;  we  have  lost  all  true  happiness  ;  we 
have  lost  all  ability  to  serve  God  in  a  holy  and  ac¬ 
ceptable  manner  ;  and,  in  a  word,  we  have  lost  all 
spiritual  desires  after  the  enjoyment  ol  God  as  our 


241 


eternal  portion.  Hence  in  the  view  of  all  this 
loss,  we  may  well  exclaim  in  the  language  of  the 
mourning  prophet — “  How  is  the  gold  become 
dim !  how  is  the  most  fine  gold  changed  !” — u  The 
crown  is  fallen  from  our  head  ;  woe  unto  us,  that 
we  have  sinned !” 

5.  How  wretched  and  dismal  is  the  condition  of 
men  by  nature  !  They  have  not  only  sustained  a 
most  grievous  loss,  but  are  also  involved  in  evils 
of  a  positive  and  most  awful  nature.  They  are 
under  the  condemnation  and  curse  of  a  broken 
law  ;  their  hearts  are  morally  corrupt ;  they  are 
dead  in  sin ;  they  are  by  nature  children  of  wrath  ; 
they  are  exposed  also  to  all  the  miseries  connected 
with  a  mortal  nature,  and  all  the  evils  incident  to  a 
fallen  state.  And  worse  than  all,  they  are  obnox¬ 
ious,  after  death,  to  the  endurance  of  the  unming¬ 
led  wrath  of  God,  in  hell,  for  ever  and  ever.  Such 
is  the  natural  condition  of  all  the  descendants  of 
guilty  Adam.  Nor  is  this  all,  they  have  no  ability 
to  better  their  condition.  Their  impotence  is 
commensurate  with  their  guilt  and  wretchedness. 
They  can  neither  make  satisfaction  to  the  offended 
justice  of  God  for  the  guilt  that  lies  already  upon 
them,  nor  prevent  the  future  accumulation  of  that 
guilt  and  consequent  wrath,  by  acts  of  holy  obedi¬ 
ence.  Indeed,  were  the  eternal  salvation  of  their 

£1 


242 


souls  offered  them,  on  condition  of  their  perform¬ 
ing  a  single  act  of  holy  obedience,  such  as  the  law 
of  God  requires,  the  offer  would  be  worthless,  as 
the  condition  could  never  be  performed.  Thus  the 
natural  condition  of  all  mankind  is,  in  itself  con¬ 
sidered,  if  not  as  wretched,  at  least  as  hopeless 
and  desperate,  as  the  condition  of  the  apostate  an¬ 
gels.  Whatever,  therefore,  the  pride  of  the  hu¬ 
man  heart  may  say  to  the  contrary,  and  however  it 
may  indulge  in  the  Laodicean  boast  of  self-suffi¬ 
ciency,  there  is  nothing  more  certain  from  the  word 
of  God,  than  that  all  the  children  of  Adam,  are, 
by  nature,  “  wretched,  and  miserable,  and  poor, 
and  blind,  and  naked.” 

6.  There  is  something  awfully  evil  in  the  nature 
of  sin.  This  is  evident  from  that  loss  and  wretch¬ 
edness,  which  it  has  introduced  into  the  family  of 
man.  When  we  consider  that  God  is  essentially 
good,  and  infinitely  disposed  to  communicate  of 
his  goodness  to  the  creatures  of  his  power,  we  can 
only  account  for  the  sad  reverse  that  has  taken 
place  in  the  condition  of  man,  by  having  recourse 
to  the  evil  nature  of  sin.  Surely  it  was  sin,  that 
dried  up  those  streams  of  divine  benignity,  which 
flowed  to  man,  while  in  his  state  of  innocence ; 
that  caused  the  woful  deprivation  which  his  nature 
has  experienced :  and  that  has  placed  him  in  his 


243 


present  state  of  degradation  and  wretchedness. 
Indeed,  had  it  not  been  for  the  malignant  influence 
of  sin,  our  earth  would  yet  have  remained  an  Eden, 
and  perpetual  friendship  and  the  most  endearing 
intercourse  would  have  been  maintained  between 
God  and  man.  We  have,  therefore,  learned  to 
our  sad  experience,  “that  it  is  an  evil  thing  and 
bitter  that  we  have  forsaken  the  Lord  our  God.” 
The  ruins  of  the  fall  are  a  monument,  on  which  is 
deeply  engraven  the  evil  and  malignant  nature  of 
sin.  Hence  we  should  count  sin  as  our  worst 
enemy,  fight  against  it,  zealously  study  its  exter¬ 
mination,  and  pray  the  God  of  forgiveness  for  de¬ 
liverance  from  its  eternal  and  dreadful  consequences. 

7.  How  extensive  also  is  the  empire  of  sin ! 
Revelation  informs  us,  that  sin  sways  its  iron 
sceptre  over  two  distinct  classes  of  subjects,  fallen 
ano  els  and  fallen  men.  The  number  of  the  former 
we  know  not,  only  it  is  exceedingly  great ;  the 
number  of  the  latter  is  equal  to  the  whole  posterity 
of  Adam,  except  where  grace  has  interposed  a 
rescue.  And  even  here,  in  the  first  instance,  there 
is  no  exception,  since  sin  has  reigned  over  all  the 
myriads  of  human  beings  that  have  already  been 
called  into  existence,  and  will  reign  over  all  that 
are  yet  to  be  called  into  exisience.  Mankind  are 
all  born  in  the  empire  of  sin,  and  are  by  nature  its 


244 


wretched  subjects.  And  over  all  these  subjects 
the  dominion  of  sin  is  most  complete.  It  possess¬ 
es  and  controls  both  soul  and  body.  The  under¬ 
standing  the  will,  the  conscience,  the  affections 
are  all  under  its  jurisdiction  and  influence  ;  and  the 
members  of  the  body  are  become  the  willing  “  in¬ 
struments  of  unrighteousness  unto  sin/  How  ex¬ 
tensive,  then,  is  the  empire  of  sin,  and  how  com¬ 
plete  the  dominion,  which  it  exercises  !  Strange 
attempts  have  been  made  to  discover  the  reason, 
why  God  has  permitted  the  erection  of  this  malig¬ 
nant  empire  in  our  world.  Thus,  it  has  been  main¬ 
tained,  that  u  the  existence  of  sin  is  necessary  in 
a  moral  system,”  that  u  God  in  adopting  the  best 
moral  sys.tem,  could  not  prevent  the  existence  of 
sin,”  and  that  “  sin  is  the  necessary  means  of  the 
greatest  cood  of  the  universe.  These  and  simi- 

o  o 

lar  positions  have  had,  and  still  have,  their  zealous 
and  pugnacious  advocates  ;  who,  by  the  way^  in 
supporting  their  respective  hypotheses ,  are  not  a  lit¬ 
tle  chargeable  with  what  the  Apostle  calls  “  vain 
philosophy,”  and  with  using  what  he  also  denomi¬ 
nates  “great  swelling  words  of  vanity.  There 
is  great  danger  in  curiously  prying  into  the  unre¬ 
vealed  reasons  of  the  procedure  of  the  great  and 
mysterious  I  AM,  and  in  thus  seeking  to  become 
wise  above  what  is  written. 1  Job,  in  descanting 


245 


upon  the  works  of  God,  piously  exclaims,  “  Lo, 
these  are  parts  of  his  ways ;  but  how  little  a  por¬ 
tion  is  heard  of  him  !”  But  taking  revelation  for 
our  guide,  we  may  safely  affirm,  that  of  all  possi¬ 
ble  ends,  Jehovah,  in  his  infinite  wisdom,  has  se¬ 
lected  his  own  glory  as  the  best  and  most  exalted, 
and  that  all  things  are  made,  permitted,  ordered, 
and  governed  with  a  view  to  the  promotion  of  that 
end.  Consequently  it  was  for  the  manifestation  of 
himself,  for  the  brighter  display  of  his  unrivalled 
perfections,  and  for  securing  an  eternal  revenue  of 
glory  from  the  mediatory  work  of  Immanuel,  that 
he  has  permitted  the  existence  of  sin  in  his  domin¬ 
ion?.  This  consideration  is  entirely  satisfactory 
to  every  pious  mind  ;  and  beyond  this  it  is  arro¬ 
gant  in  the  creature,  it  is  daring  presumption  to 
penetrate,  or  even  enquire.  Let  all  then,  with 
Christian  reverence  and  modesty,  learn  to  adore 
the  wisdom  and  sovereignty  of  God  displayed  in 
this  matter,  and  to  say  with  the  inspired  Apostle, 
“  O  the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and 
knowledge  of  God !  how  unsearchable  are  his  judg¬ 
ments,  and  his  ways  past  finding  out !” 

8.  It  appears  from  what  has  passed  under  dis¬ 
cussion,  that  the  soul  of  man  is  of  immense  value. 
Very  wonderful  have  been  the  arrangements  of  God 
respecting  it.  With  the  manifest  design  of  secur- 

£1* 


246 


ino-  its  welfare  he  condescended  to  enter  into  a 
Covenant  with  Adam.  And  when  that  Covenant 
was  broken  and  the  way  of  obtaining1  life  by  it 
forever  lost,  he  revealed  a  Covenant  which  could 
not  he  broken,  even  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  as 
made  with  the  Eternal  Son  in  the  name,  and  for 
the  salvation,  of  guilty  sinners.  Thus  God  has 
always  dealt  with  man,  about  his  eternal  interests, 
in  the  way  of  solemn  covenant  transaction.  And 
this  conclusively  shows  the  great  value  that  he 
attaches  to  the  soul  of  man.  Indeed,  all  the  most 
interesting  operations  of  his  Providence  in  the 
government  of  the  world,  have  had  an  immediate 
reference  to  the  human  soul :  And  so  true  is  this, 
that,  if  those  operations  had  never  taken  place, 
the  glory  of  divine  Providence  would  have  been 
greatly  obscured — nay,  all  would  be  blank,  where 
now  is  beheld  such  an  illustrious  display  of  every 
perfection.  Hence  a  consideration  of  the  stupend¬ 
ous  arrangments  and  operations  of  Heaven,  in  re¬ 
lation  to  the  subject  of  the  human  soul,  tends  to 
illustrate  the  force  of  our  Saviours  words — “  What 
shall  it  profit  a  man,  if  he  shall  gain  the  whole 
world  and  lose  his  own  soul  I  Or,  what  shall  a  man 
give  in  exchange  for  his  soul?”  Hence,  then,  if 
the  soul  of  man  possesses  such  an  immense  value, 


247 

how  diligent  and  careful  should  all  be  in  seeking 
its  eternal  welfare ! 

9.  The  subject  teaches  us  the  necessity  of  fleeing 
by  faith  to  the  New  Covenant  for  salvation.  All 
mankind  are  naturally  in  a  state  of  condemnation 
and  fearful  exposure  to  the  wrath  to  come.  And 
as  they  have  been  ruined  by  the  Covenant  of 
Works,  they  cannot  be  saved,  but  by  the  Covenant 
of  Grace.  To  show  fallen  man  the  impossibility 
of  obtaining  life  by  the  broken  Covenant,  Cheru¬ 
bim,  with  flaming  swords,  were  stationed  at  the 
east  of  Eden  to  keep  the  way  of  the  tree  of  life. 
And  corresponding  to  this  emblematical  intima¬ 
tion,  we  read  in  language  of  the  plainest  import — 
“By  the  deeds  of  the  law,  no  flesh  living  can  be 
justified;”  and  again — “As  many  as  are  of  the 
deeds  of  the  law  are  under  the  curse  ;  for  it  is 
written,  “  Cursed  is  every  one,  that  continueth  not 
in  all  things,  which  are  written  in  the  book  of  the 
law  to  do  them.”  Salvation,  therefore,  is  only  at¬ 
tainable  by  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  The  gospel 
contains  a  revelation  of  this  Covenant,  assures  us 
that  its  condition  has  been  fulfilled  by  the  great 
Mediator  and  Surety,  and  proposes  all  its  gracious 
blessings  to  sinners  for  their  acceptance.  “Ho, 
every  one  that  thirsteth,  come  ye  to  the  waters, 
and  he  that  hath  no  money:  come  ye,  buy  and 


248 


eat ;  yea,  come,  buy  wine  and  milk  without  money 
and  without  price — Incline  your  ear  and  come  un  ¬ 
to  me  ;  hear,  and  your  soul  shall  live  ;  and  I  will 
make  an  everlasting  covenant  with  you,  even  the 
sure  mercies  of  David.”  Let  the  needy  and 
perishing*  sinner,  then,  take  hold  of  this  everlast¬ 
ing  Covenant  and  in  the  language  of  an  appropriat¬ 
ing  faith,  say  with  the  typical  David — “He  hath 
made  with  me  an  everlasting  covenant,  ordered  in 
all  things,  and  sure  ;  for  this  is  all  my  salvation 
and  all  my  desire.” 

10.  We  may  learn  from  the  subject  the  necessity 
of  regeneration.  The  imputation  of  Adam’s  sin 
to  his  posterity  has  been  attended  with  the  cor¬ 
ruption  of  their  whole  nature.  Hence,  without  a 
spiritual  renovation,  without  a  new  creation,  with¬ 
out  a  supernatural  and  gracious  change  effected  in 
them,  they  can  neither  enjoy  God,  nor  perform 
■acts  pleasing  in  his  sight.  “  That  which  is  born 
of  the  flesh  is  flesh;”  and  “they  that  are  in  the 
flesh  cannot  please  God.”  “  A  corrupt  tree  can¬ 
not  bring  forth  good  fruit.”  “Do  men  gather 
grapes  of  thorns,  or  figs  of  thistles?”  “We  are 
his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto 
good  works.”  “If  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a 
new  creature;  old  things  are  passed  away;  be¬ 
hold,  all  things  are  become  new.”  “  Verily,  verily, 


249 


I  say  unto  thee,  except  a  man  be  born  again,  he 
cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.” 

11.  We  may  see  from  the  subject,  that  salva¬ 
tion  is  wholly  of  grace.  This  necessarily  follows 
from  that  guilt,  and  corruption,  and  impotence,  in 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  all  the  descendants  of 
apostate  Adam  have  become  involved.  The  jus¬ 
tice  and  holiness  of  God  would  have  been  illustri¬ 
ously  glorified  in  the  eternal  destruction  of  them 
all.  And  such  destruction  must  inevitably  have 
taken  place,  but  for  the  interposition  of  free  and 
sovereign  grace.  Accordingly  the  salvation  of 
sinners  is  laid  in  grace,  and  is  carried  on  and  per¬ 
fected  by  grace.  Grace  has  planned  and  grace 
executes  the  whole  work.  “Grace  reigns  through 
righteousness  unto  eternal  life,  by  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord.”  From  this  work,  creature-merit  is  for¬ 
ever  excluded.  “Not  by  works  of  righteousness, 
which  we  have  done,  but  according  to  his  mercy 
he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and 
the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.”  If  salvation 
were  not  wholly  of  grace,  there  would  be  room 
for  boasting,  contrary  to  the  whole  tenor  of  the 
gospel.  “  Where  is  boasting  then?  It  is  excluded. 

'  By  what  law  ?  of  works  ?  Nay  ;  but  by  the  law 
of  faith.”  Hence  if  salvation  be  not  received  as 
the  free  gift  of  divine  and  glorious  grace,  it  can 


250 


never  be  enjoyed.  “  For  by  grace  are  ye  saved 
through  faith ;  and  that  not  of  yourselves ;  it  is 
the  gift  of  God  :  Not  of  works,  lest  any  man 
should  boast.” 

1£.  Finally  from  all  that  has  been  advanced,  we 
may  learn  the  injurious  tendency  of  denying  the 
doctrine  of  Original  Sin.  Our  times  are  unhappily 
characterized  by  a  spirit  of  error  and  innovation, 
in  matters  of  religion.  There  are  few  of  the  doc¬ 
trines  of  Christ,  that  are  not  openly  and  boldly 
attacked.  And  against  none  of  them  does  this  at¬ 
tack  appear  to  be  more  successfully  managed, 
than  against  the  one,  which  we  have  been  humbly 
endeavoring  to  vindicate.  The  establishment  of  a 
covenant  of  works  with  Adam  is  denied  :  his  re¬ 
presentative  headship  is  refused  :  the  imputation 
of  his  sin,  beyond  himself,  is  rejected  :  the  loss  of 
the  moral  image  of  God  and  the  entire  corruption 
of  our  nature  is  turned  into  mockery :  and  our  to¬ 
tal  inability  to  love  and  serve  God  is  laughed  to 
scorn.  Now,  the  denial  of  these  points  and  the 
converting  of  them  into  ridicule,  as  is  frequently 
done,  must  exert  an  influence  most  injurious  to 
the  salvation  of  souls.  A  denial  of  the  Covenant  of 
Works  naturally  leads  to  a  denial  of  the  Covenant 
of  Grace :  Adam’s  representative  character  can¬ 
not  be  denied,  and  Christ’s  representative  charac- 


251 


ter  maintained  :  If  Adam’s  sin  cannot  be  imputed 
to  Ins  posterity,  there  could  be  no  imputation  ef 
our  sins  to  Christ,  nor  of  his  righteousness  to  us : 
To  deny,  that  we  are  born  destitute  of  the  image 
of  God  and  are  totally  depraved,  is  to  deny  the 
necessity  of  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit :  And 
to  deny  the  total  inability  of  fallen  man,  in  spiritu¬ 
al  matters,  is  to  deny  the  necessity  of  grace  in 
order  to  the  performance  of  good  works.  Thus,  a 
denial  of  the  doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  either  in 
whole,  or  in  part,  draws  excessively  deep,  and  is 
necessarily  accompanied  with  danger,  if  not  cer¬ 
tain  perdition.  It  not  only  leads,  as  just  stated,  to 
a  rejection  of  other  fundamental  truths  of  the  great 
evangelic  system,  but  helps  to  foster  the  native 
pride  of  the  human  heart,  nurture  an  odious  spirit 
of  legalism,  and  to  overlook  the  glory  of  free  and 
sovereign  grace,  as  reigning  alone  throughout  the 
whole  of  the  sinner’s  salvation. 

Is  it  not,  then,  greatly  to  be  lamented,  that  a 
course,  so  dishonoring  to  God  and  so  injurious  to 
the  best  interests  of  the  immortal  soul,  as  opposi¬ 
tion  to  the  great  doctrine  in  question  undoubtedly 
is,  should  be  so  zealously  persisted  in  1  And  alas  ! 
this  is  done,  not  by  a  few  restless,  theological 
speculators  only,  but  by  multitudes  in  the  church, 
both  of  ministers  and  people.  Indeed,  this  evil 


252 


has  become  alarmingly  epidemic,  threatening  the 
heritage  of  the  Lord  with  “blasting  and  mildew,” 
and  “perpetual  desolation.”  And  if  the  friends 
of  Zion  feel  alarm,  lest  she  be  visited  with  sore 
and  destructive  plagues,  in  consequence  of  the  pre¬ 
valence  of  these  pernicious  errors,  let  it  not  be 
reckoned  strange  :  For  surely  there  is  danger  to 
be  apprehended,  when  the  sacred  ark  of  truth  is 
touched  with  such  unhallowed  rudeness  and  shock¬ 
ing  temerity.  But,  that  threatened  judgments 
may  be  averted,  let  all  the  friends  of  truth  rally 
in  its  just  and  glorious  defence,  and  observe  with 
perseverence  the  divine  injunction — earnestly 

CONTEND  FOR  THE  FAITH  WHICH  WAS  ONCE  DELIV¬ 
ERED  TO  THE  SAINTS. 


THE  END. 


„  • 


■  • 


* 


« ' 

* 

* 

'  .  * 


:  -  , 


HAj  * 

r. .  * 


• * 


% 


\ 


•  \ 


0  27 


37 


W 


- il- 


Date  Due 


